In our previous episode, Juha Manninen (gmail) said: > No, it would be the other way around. The "kind of C++" or "pseudo C++" or > whatever would map to the existing compiler's data and object structure.
Then the avg C++ code would not run, since it uses boost and friends that heavily use every detail of the C++ object model. > However, C++ is a poor example because its syntax is a deep swamp. > Ok, I don't start with multiply inheritance or templates... Yes, but you can't discount the difficult ones, because they are the only ones that could make it useful (even though it is not as easy by far as the painting that you picture). One wouldn't want to butcher up the compiler just so you can compile some forgotten Basic dialect just because it was "clean" enough. > The frontend would need to ban lots of syntax, practically creating a new > C++ related language ... No thanks for me ... I see C++ as an example of > how NOT to do things. That is exactly the kind of circle reasoning that haunts these discussions. The actual target is a constant flux, and adapts to suit the reasoning: MS> We need a C++ frontend MV> Why ? MS> porting to Pascal is such a horror, and then we could C++ code as is. MV> implementing a C++ does not mean interoperability JH> Then change C++ so that is interoperable. MV> But then you are can't compile foreign C++ code anymore! _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
