From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linville@tuxdriver.com (John W. Linville) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: <51F7EA35.6070501@wwwdotorg.org> References: <2460092.aLmjrOVh1g@flatron> <51F3A82E.2000907@broadcom.com> <1374988276.1973.29.camel@dabdike> <20130730014453.GJ29970@voom.fritz.box> <51F7EA35.6070501@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20130730172718.GA2509@tuxdriver.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30:45AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/29/2013 08:15 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson > > wrote: > ... > >> I also think we should consider the option of having a simple and > >> straightforward schema language which handles, say, 80% of cases with > >> a fall back to C for the 20% of curly cases. That might actually be > >> simpler to work with in practice than a schema language which can > >> express absolutely anything, at the cost of being awkward for simple > >> cases or difficult to get your head around. > > > > Would C++ work? You can use operating overloading and templates to > > change the syntax into something that doesn't even resemble C any > > more. > > From my perspective, that's precisely why C++ should /not/ be used. Amen. -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville at tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.