On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch > <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: >> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:39:08AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Basile Starynkevitch >>> <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: >>> >>> > At last, there is a very important issue when switching to C++. What is >>> > our "ideal" class hierarchy? >>> >>> The ideal class hierarchy is independent of the language used. The language >>> matters only to the extend that it provides direct support (or lack >>> thereof) to >>> express that hierarchy. >> >> >> I fully agree (and indeed we could have a quite clean class hierarchy >> in C, like GTK have), > > and as a matter of fact, we do already have a class hierarchy. The issue > there > I suspect is whether its expression in C is faithful. > >> but a transition to C++ could also be the time >> for defining more properly our type or class hierarchies. > > yes, it definitely is an opportunity to revise the design as we are revisiting > the area, but that should be orthogonal to the rest.
And we definitely should not do so just because we can. I see little value in turning our tree upside-down just because we now can use C++ and make everything a class rather than a union. Richard.
