Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >On Thu Mar 28 08:53:03 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > >> >> Eh - in fact you _promised_ to do that in trade for accepting the C++ >> conversion! >> Never trust promises from google ... *sigh* > > >You need to calm down. This childish attitude is insulting and >counterproductive.
Ah well, sorry about that. >The gengtype conversion was part of our plan all along. It's an obvious > >continuation of the conversion. > >My time is finite and my priorities are dictated by other agents. If I >say that they are plans for now, it's because I have not had time to >work on it. That should not stop anyone, because we have the necessary >base to do this particular implementation. > >> >> Now we are in the exact situation I was feared about - people will >start >> hacking around the C++ gengtype limitations in various ways instead >of >> doing it properly (because "those plans are just plans"). > >Anyone can implement the specific aspect of the gengtype plan by using >manual markers (which is exactly what I had in mind). > >We already have two classes doing that, in fact. There is no need to >hack around limitations in gengtype. You simply supply manual markers. > >The support is already there. > >Once all types have switched to GTY((manual)), we remove gengtype.[ch]. Fine. As long as reviewers resist enhancements to gengtype and push people to rely on manual marking. Richard. > >Diego.
