Albert Cahalan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Michael Bruck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Zach Welch <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >>> At the most fundamental level, it comes down to this: >>> >>> C == imperative programming >>> C++ == object-oriented programming >>> >>> The different mindsets should yield completely different code. Their >>> overall architectures could be virtually identical, but the code would >>> not be structured even remotely the same. >>> >> The current code looks to me as if in large parts it is a simulation >> of C++ in C. >> > > Linux itself is highly object-oriented, and it hasn't been C++ since > 1992 at least. (oo abstraction examples: vfs, block device, network > protocol, scsi device, cd device, etc.) > > It has excellent style. It's highly readable as kernels go. > If there is any question of changing style, follow Linux. >
Linux is an operating system. OpenOCD is an application. This would be like building your roof out of concrete block, which is material most appropriate for a foundation. Unless somebody pays for the work, the guys doing the work will get to decide. It is difficult to ask a volunteer to do something a certain way. Dick _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
