On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Monty Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> Even for the client/connector? >> I'm curious, got a link where Brian explains why it's not efficient enough? > > No - he just poked at it offline. Maybe we can get him to expand on that.
That'd be nice. > However, libdrizzle itself isn't in C++ at the moment - it's in plain C. > We've chatted about making the implementation in C++ with an extern "C" > API for pure-C clients to use, but have not done that yet - so as of now > it's just C99. That should be easy. >>>> Are c++0x features (available in g++ 4.4) allowed? >>> >>> No - we still have platforms on which we must use gcc 4.2. (/me cries) >> >> Argh. RH? > > OSX, actually. ALTHOUGH - then the next version of OSX comes out, I'm > hoping it has a new version of clang, which is really close to being > able to compile both boost and drizzle. If we can get drizzle compiling > under clang on OSX, we can drop OSX gcc support, and then we can move > forward with some of the nicer C++0x features (like constructor defaults > and move semantics) I've no experience with OSX myself, is installing a recent compiler that hard? Olaf _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
