> its apps and users. Many of these programs are built on top of years of C > code, > so I don't think it would be easy for the developers of those programs to > switch > from C to C++ even if they wanted to.
Allan’s proposal to keep the code C but ensure it builds with a C++ compiler likely had precisely this kind of scenario in mind. It does help others to make a generic interface. It is likely a lot more work. Experience with an AI-assisted IDE could speed things. > <https://github.com/sammonius/qtc> nice > Qt was when I started that project, so I was going to try starting from > scratch by making a script that generates bindings from Qt's header files, > but I wanted to see if having it built-into Qt was an option first. > The problem is that C++ doesn't let you get the address of > constructors/destructors. > The only option might be to make a function that calls "new" and returns > it, and same > with delete, but that would probably destroy the point of having the > bindings internal > so I don't know what to do. Yes, I imagine constructors basically need a wrapper function that calls new or placement new, or a template. If the bindings were internal, the constructor could be statically linked and possibly inlined into the wrapper. Of course, you would only call a C++ member function from C++ code as they have different calling conventions from C functions, so that can mean a lot of wrappers. Qt has such a strong C++ basis that I personally might take the small performance hit of keeping C bindings more separate, to make merging forward easier. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
