On Aug 1, 6:09 pm, John Bokma <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roy Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > candide <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
> >> implementation is written in pure and "old" C90. Is it for historical
> >> reasons?
>
> >> C is not an OOL and C++ strongly is. I wonder if it wouldn't be more
> >> suitable to implement an OOL with another one.
>
> > One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C
> > libraries than C++ libraries.
>
> In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C
> (frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked.
> So I don't think your argument was much true back then.
No, it was that way back then too. They might all generate C code but
different C code by different backends wouldn't be able to call each
other natively.
For instnace the function
int foo(int);
might be name-mangled this way in one cfront:
foo$d
and this way in another:
____int_foo__int_i
The virtual table of this class:
class Bar {
virtual int foo(int);
virtual int bar(int);
};
might be generated like this in one cfront:
struct Bar$$Vtable$ {
int (*Bar$$bar$d)(int);
int (*Bar$$foo$d)(int);
};
and like this in another:
struct ____class_Foo___vtable_ {
int (*foo)(int);
int (*bar)(int);
};
So, just because they both generated C code, it doesn't mean they can
call one another.
Carl Banks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
