Re: C++ *for Git*

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Dmitry Kakurin <dmitry.kakurin@gmail.com> writes:

> We've had this theoretical (and IMHO pointless) discussion C vs. C++
> *in general*.
> In no way I want to restart it.

Then don't.

> Just a very straight-forward usage of only 3 C++ features:
> 1. Constructors
> 2. Destructors
> 3. Better syntax (ext_header.append_ext_header
> vs. strbuf_append_ext_header(&ext_header, )
>
> The generated code will be exactly the same.

It won't.  It will _do_ exactly the same (modulo the tenfold
likelihood of compiler bugs) but hardly using the same code.

> Yet the source code becomes more readable and MUCH less error
> prone. How is this not a win?

Because it is just your claim that this is more readable.

> One (sensible) argument that I've heard in the previous discussion
> was: you let a little bit of C++ in and then it gets more and more
> complex and the code quality decreases.
> This problem is solved by having "quality gates".
> Again, *for Git* these quality gates already exist: only few people
> have "commit access".
> If/when somebody tries to be too fancy, what stops Junio from replying
> "we don't use Library-X/C++-feature-Y in Git, please change your code
> and resubmit" and throwing that fix away? Nothing.

Well, what stops him from replying "we don't use C++ in Git, please
change your code and resubmit"?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum