From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-07 06:08:27
"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| At Saturday 2004-11-06 10:11, you wrote:
| >| Hubert Holin wrote:
| >| >
| >| > I must say I *strongly* disagree with having code with is C
| >| > compatible, mainly because this will greatly hamper
| >| genericity (or at
| >| > least convenient and safe parametrisation of code).
| >| >
| >| > Even if the code turns up only feasible for, say, float and
| >| > double, I strongly believe it should be templated upon the floating
| >| > type, with specializations if need be. The C library in C++
| >| clothing
| >| > approach is just plain wrong, IMHO.
| >| >
| >| I completely agree with this. It makes no sense to have a C++ library
| >| that does not use the full strength of the language.
| >This view has already been expressed several times
| >- but we have to face the fact that
| >C99 and Walter Brown's functions are already in TR-1 to achieve C
| >I consider it essential to follow their example.
| F*** C comparability!!! (I gotta go make that bumper sticker suCks
| (with the C in a different color))
| the language should have died a decade ago.
| In case anyone else doesn't get it, C++ is simply a better
| language. Staying tied to a dinosaur is foolish.
It might be worth looking at what benefits we can get out of a templated
Would it for example, be possible to use the code with a big_floats class?
At any rate, wouldn't it be possible to have a genuine C++ version with
exceptions and all and then
provide simple wrappers for C compatibility:
void foo( ... );
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk