Re: The Case for Rust (in any system)

Dmitry Salychev wrote in
 <868qw0uafp.fsf@peasant.bootbsd.com>:
 ...
 |I've mentioned MISRA C++:2023 already, but would like to elaborate on my
 |idea behind it. It forms a subset of ISO/IEC 14882:2017 (C++17) by
 ...
 |For example, there's a rule 13.1.1 which prohibits classes to be
 |inherited virtually, but it's in the "advisory" category at the same
 |time. Rule 13.3.1 states that user-declared member functions shall use
 |the virtual, override and final specifiers appropriately.
  ...

..only to mention that somehow the order of the C++ keywords
virtual and override are bogus unless (last and only version
i truly ready aka bought the book was '98) i have been hitten by
a compiler bug.  I used to use preprocessor macro things for
clarity aka "explicity", but when newer standards came the order
was reversed, i know have (horrors!) use wrapper macros to be able
to place the keyword correctly, that is

either
  include/su/code.h:#  define su_OVRX(X) virtual X
or
  include/su/code.h:#  define su_OVRX(X) X override

and thus

  src/su/.main.cxx:       OVRX(~a_md__sade(void)) {}
or
  src/su/.main.cxx:       OVRX(up property(prop prop) const){

instead of, as before the advent of override

  ovrx ~a_md__sade(void){}
or
  ovrx up property(prop prop) const){..}

*What a mess*!!  I mean *is* override an override of virtual, then
why is it placed that [fecal].  That is just [fecal].  If they
really abolish the preprocessor at some later point, all bets are
off.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)