On 08/11/14 15:18, Jim Starkey wrote: > Adriano, you are arguing that you are right and the rest of the world is > wrong. > > COM is designed so any language can use it, but C++ can use either as > explicit vectors of method pointer OR as a pure virtual interface. Either > works, but using it as a C++ mechanism is very simple and powerful.
Either works as long as vtable in C++ pure virtual interface has format exactly matching an explicit vector of method pointers. If some way can be proofed that it must always be so and another format of vtable is just a bug of compiler developers, I'll be glad to continue using c++ pure virtual interfaces (like it's done now). > You may have noticed few defenders of your interface. Most have argued that > it is ugly, hard to use, and very unlikely to meet its goals for mapping into > native objects in multiple languages. That's bad argument. When Copernicus suggested his new model of the solar system everybody was against. With "strong" argument - we see ourself that it's Sun rotating around the Earth... > These are legimate criticisms that you have not answered. > Language on which suggested vtables are very easy to access should meet the following requirements: support pointers to functions, support structures (or in the worst case arrays) with reasonable members packing and support __cdecl calling convention. Certainly, far not all languages meet that requirements - but a lot of used in practice do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
