From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-reply-to: <20070802120515.GL21089@ftp.linux.org.uk> (message from Al Viro on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:05:15 +0100) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] type safe allocator References: <20070802120515.GL21089@ftp.linux.org.uk> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:05:33 +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: viro@ftp.linux.org.uk Cc: miklos@szeredi.hu, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: > Folks, this is serious. _We_ might be used to having in effect a C dialect > with extensions implemented by preprocessor. That's fine, but for a fresh > reader it becomes a problem; sure, they can dig in include/linux/*.h and > to some extent they clearly have to. However, it doesn't come for free > and we really ought to keep that in mind - amount of local idioms (and > anything that doesn't look like a normal function call with normal arguments > _does_ become an idiom to be learnt before one can fluently RTFS) is a thing > to watch out for. That's why the g_new() form that glib uses makes some sense. It borrows an idiom from C++, and although we all know C++ is a horrid language, to some extent lots of people are familiar with it. > IOW, whenever we add to that pile we ought to look hard at whether it's worth > the trouble. Well, this is not some earth-shattering stuff, but I think it would be good to have. I got used to it in glib, and I miss it in linux. I understand the knee-jerk reaction of most people who are unfamiliar with it, and I can do nothing about that. If there's no positive feedback I'll just give up, it's not that I can't live with the current situation. Miklos -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org