From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1751202AbWDXUCg@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751202AbWDXUCg (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:02:36 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751205AbWDXUCg
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:02:36 -0400
Received: from email-out1.iomega.com ([147.178.1.84]:15054 "EHLO
	email-out1.iomega.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751202AbWDXUCf (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:02:35 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Gary Poppitz <poppitzg@iomega.com>
Subject: C++ pushback
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:02:27 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2006 20:02:35.0014 (UTC) FILETIME=[07546260:01C667DA]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> We know they are "incompatible", why else would we allow "private" and
> "struct class" in the kernel source if we some how expected it to work
> with a C++ compiler?


I can see that this was intentional, not an oversight.

If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have  
no reason or desire to be on this list.

Grow up.