From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:30:45 -0600 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <2007664.vYsECFSKrV@flatron> <51F39FD8.6080808@broadcom.com> <2460092.aLmjrOVh1g@flatron> <51F3A82E.2000907@broadcom.com> <1374988276.1973.29.camel@dabdike> <20130730014453.GJ29970@voom.fritz.box> Message-ID: <51F7EA35.6070501@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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.