OK. That sounds reasonable, but do we want to do another forced
change, or do we want to hide it? That seems to be the root of the problem:
keeping the same API but making it work _right_.
>
> Any scheme trying to imitate polymorphism with use of cpp/
> GNU extensions/whatever is missing the point. There is _no_ common
> operation to extend on several types. Choice between signed and
> unsigned max should be explicit - they are different operations.
Well, IIRC I remember someone saying that it was legal to compare
signed/unsigned ints, if you did it in the right order. IMHO that might be
incorrect. And none of the ideas I have suggested use any fancy cpp/GNU rubbish.
The most evil-sounding thing I suggested was #4.
>
> Trying to hide that is C++itis of the worst kind - false
> polymorphism that hides only one thing: subtle bugs.
>
Ack. (IMHO) I don't like C++ either :P
Brad
=====
Brad Chapman
Permanent e-mail: kakadu_croc@yahoo.com
Current e-mail: kakadu@adelphia.net
Alternate e-mail: kakadu@netscape.net
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/