Hi Karl,
On 17-02-17 10:56, Karl Palsson wrote: >> Now, on a more general note, I do would like to make the case >> to make sure libopencm3 is (re)writen in a C++ compatible >> format. > In general I'm all for it, but designated initializers are bloody > awesome and C++ is lame for not having them. You'll run into it > in all the rcc clocks as well I'm afraid. I don't know designated initializers but I must say I agree with you. They look very usefull. The problem is that gcc does not have our "geeky" mind and simply says "it's not in the standard, so ... bzzzz!". Sayly enough, when you are trying to port an arduino library and some example-code of a device you actually want to use, that's the only thing that counts. :-( Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ libopencm3-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libopencm3-devel
