== Quote from Don ([email protected])'s article > BLS wrote: > > Hi, > > I think nearly nobody is using extern (C++) 'cause of it's limits. So > > why not drop it ? IMHO this feature is not a " D2 sales argument", > > instead it's vs. productive. > > What do you think ? > > Bjoern > > > There's a much more fundamental problem with it: C++ doesn't support it! > You can't compile a file with MSVC and link it to something compiled > with g++. > Look up my CodeProject article on member function pointers -- every > vendor has their own API, and virtually none of them are documented. > On Windows, extern(C++) means extern(DMC++), but for me, the only thing > I'd want to link to is MSVC. Much more useful would be, as Brad says, to > provide a way of specifying the name mangling. If we could do that, we'd > be more compatible with C++ than C++ is to itself.
This brings up another important point: If any implementation of extern(C++) is tied to a specific C++ compiler anyhow (probably the one made by the same people that made the D compiler) then why the heck is it so limited? The rationale for it being so limited was that doing it better would practically require implementing a C++ compiler.
