2016-08-16 18:52 GMT+03:00 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi>: > On 08/16/2016 05:47 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> >> I realize there's little technical reason why we *need* C++ support. The >> level if discipline applied to our codebase negates some of the benefits >> of C++. But maintaining the discipline takes a lot of time and effort, >> and makes it more difficult to attract new contributors. > > > I suspect that it would take as much discipline to keep a C++ codebase > readable, as the current C codebase. If not more. For example, its easier and less error prone to define structures with virtual functions in C++ than write vtables manually in C. So, the adequate subset of the C++ features can be useful to write more readable and maintainable C-style code. These features are:
- abstract classes (well, structures with virtual functions); - RTTI; - lambda functions; - constexpr functions; - destructors; - templates (very reservedly). But these features should be avoided (as least for now): - exceptions; - the parts of the standard library which generates exceptions (in particular, regex and thread). -- // Dmitry. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers