From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751123AbWDXUSD (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:18:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751140AbWDXUSC (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:18:02 -0400 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:33744 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751123AbWDXUSA (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:18:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:16:47 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Gary Poppitz Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: C++ pushback Message-ID: <20060424201647.GA8790@kroah.com> References: <20060424192710.GB2505@kroah.com> <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 02:02:27PM -0600, Gary Poppitz wrote: > >We know they are "incompatible", why else would we allow "private" and > >"struct class" in the kernel source if we some how expected it to work > >with a C++ compiler? > > > I can see that this was intentional, not an oversight. > > If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have > no reason or desire to be on this list. If there is a lack of willingness to do a simple bit of research: http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+kernel+C%2B%2B The responses you get back might seem a big harsh. In short, the rule around here, as well with most groups in life, seems to be: "show no respect, get none in return" thanks, greg k-h