W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: C++

From: Andy Dent <dent@oofile.com.au>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 06:33:22 +0800
Message-Id: <p04320408b7e5354b2ef6@[192.168.0.1]>
To: "html-tidy@w3.org" <html-tidy@w3.org>
At 12:34 -0600 2/10/2001, Lee Passey wrote:
>"Rick Cameron" wrote:
>
>> Did you create C++ classes, or did you just get the source to compile as
>> C++?
>
>I actually created C++ classes.  Interestingly, with all the structure
>pointers being passed around, it almost looked like tidy was originally
>written in C++ and then back-ported to C.
Is it really necessary to recode yet another fork of Tidy in C++?

I haven't had much time to look at it but one of the guys who worked for me
did a C++ wrapper for Tidy based on the same forwarding model we used for
our very successful expatpp wrapper for expat.

<http://www.oofile.com.au/xml/expatpp.html>

When something is written in a clean OO design (as Tidy seems to be - NOT
back-ported from C++) it's pretty easy to wrap in C++ and retain the
original source to avoid compatibility problems.

If you have really good reasons for forking off a separate C++ development,
that's great and we may be interested in helping, otherwise I suggest the
wrapper approach is superior and given inline method compilation, adds
almost no overhead.

Note: when polished, our wrapper will be contributed back to the Tidy
community, it's just that I've been really really busy with other issues,
mainly MacOS/X driven and I don't let any source out the door until I've
OK'd what's in it.
-- 

Andy Dent BSc  MACS  AACM
OOFILE - Database, Reports, Graphs, GUI for c++ on Mac, Unix & Windows
PP2MFC - PowerPlant->MFC portability
http://www.oofile.com.au/
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 18:28:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:46 GMT