- From: LSH <lsh@lubrizol.com>
- Date: 26 Feb 1996 18:20:40 U
- 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