On 20 October 2011 16:41, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > Does the above description answers your question?
I didn't ask a question. I pointed out that your criticism of "no concrete examples" applies to your proposal too. It still does. > (I'm not sure to have time implement that, and I'm not sure of the details) Why is that any different to the people saying adding C++ support to ggc is not necessary? They haven't had time to implement it yet, and may not be sure of the details yet.
