On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 10:06 -0400, Diego Novillo 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. > > 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.
I tried grepping for these, but didn't see any. Where are these? Is this in svn trunk, or in a branch? Sorry if this is a silly question. > There is no need to > hack around limitations in gengtype. You simply supply manual markers. > The support is already there.
