Re: rewrite of ltdl and c++
Hello, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:12:41PM CEST: > On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >>I think it would be better in c++. > > > >No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C. > It's simple to write a library in C++ but make its public interface > C. There are many projects that use what I would describe as sane > C++ (unfortunately there are also many that use every possible > feature). Linking a C-only project against a C++ library is quite error-prone if you only use the C compiler. I'm with Gary here. Cheers, Ralf ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: rewrite of ltdl and c++ (was: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] libltdl error reporting)
On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: I think it would be better in c++. No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C. And it would make me cry myself to sleep at night. I avoid C++, Perl, McDonalds and suicide bomber recruiters as much as I possibly can. I'm still undecided as to which one is worst for your health... It's simple to write a library in C++ but make its public interface C. There are many projects that use what I would describe as sane C++ (unfortunately there are also many that use every possible feature). IMO, setjmp/longjmp is significantly uglier. But, let's end this debate, it's unlikely to lead to anything productive :) Peter ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
