On 22/07/14 01:10, Jim Starkey wrote: <snip> > > The argument that a pure virtual interface is compiler specific has no merit. > The various C++ implementations have take the necessary and obvious steps so > that object modules compiled with different compilers cannot be mixed. There > is no risk of compiler incompatiblities if the objects modules can't be > mixed. A pure virtual interface in gcc works with a library compiled with > gcc. A pure virtual interface in the MS compiler works with a library > compiled with the MS compiler. Neither works with a library compile with an > incompatible compiler. This has been pointed out and can be experimentally > verified. To come back time and time again with a bogus agument (are you > listening, Tony?) does no one any service.
Well, you have certainly confused me Jim. I thought this was what I was saying. Anyway, my concern is not with C++ but with accessing the API from other programming languages. > The argument against a pure virtual interface is that it is language > specific. This is corect. It is both convenient and rigorously correct for > a C++ program to use a pure virtual interface. It is also crazy for a > non-C++ program to attempt to use an implicit and invisible vtable. Crazy, > nuts, insane, bonkers. Totally agree. As for what new features are in the interface - that is a separate discussion. Let's first agree that any new interface should be platform and language independent. Tony Whyman MWA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
