(I don't give a hoo about patch politics and version number supersticion.)
I'm curious about the choice of language/linkage for the implementation: Why have a specific vendor model hard-coded in c++? Seems more like task for xml/nasal scripts to me. ?:-P Nothing wrong with the language (c++) but isn't it a little out of place in the fgfs /core/. Another way to go (in the future) could be implementing specific instrument models as "plug-ins" -- dynamic objects. Then the model designer can choose implementation language freely. (If for instance one is well familiar with c++ and find nasal et.al. awkward to work with.) It could also be easier to debug in that manner. (using stubs) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
