W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-lib@w3.org > January to March 1996

Re(2): ??

From: LSH <lsh@lubrizol.com>
Date: 26 Feb 1996 18:20:40 U
Message-Id: <199602262315.AA06777@interlock.lubrizol.com>
To: ""GunnarRønning"" <gunnarr@ifi.uio.no>, "Jiang Tao" <jiangt@ceci.mit.edu>
Cc: "jiangt%ceci.mit.edu@interlockp.lubrizol.com" <jiangt@ceci.mit.edu>, "www-lib%w3.org@interlockp.lubrizol.com" <www-lib@w3.org>
>Well, it is possible to find some ways to call C++ function from
>C functions. 

	If you are compiling in C++ mode, place export "C" statement around
	the C functions that are exported from the library and you C++
	compiler will not get confused.  This is all has to do with
	the name mangling that C++ compilers do.

	Personally, I'd much rather see the library written in C++ than in C.
	As somone else pointed out, it would be MUCH easier to maintain and
	change.  The library would have been much more flexible and easier
	to assimilate to a different task.  C++ is rapidly becoming THE standard
	development language and most (if not all) the compilers support
	object oriented features.  If the speed was the main consideration
	behind the C implementation of the library, it may be valid, but
	the C++ code can always be optimized to be as fast as C. I was 
	thinking of porting in to C++ myself whenever I get some free time. :-(

Leo Shuster
Received on Monday, 26 February 1996 18:16:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:46 UTC