And, like I stated earlier, I don't know understand why we shouldn't.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 03:17:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I still say we should use the C++ interface... all our other plugins do...
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 18 Apr, Scott Haug wrote:
> > > If it is possible, I'd prefer to use the C++ interface, for now. I'm not very
> > > knowledgable about developing for windows, and know little of its limitations
> > > as far as dll's go. Someone else wrote the dll interface, so I'm not terribly
> > > familiar with it. So if there's a solution which allows us to use the C++
> > > interface for all platforms, I'm all for it.
> > There isn't such a solution -- anytime that a program communicates to
> > a library via the C++ interface (vtable) both programs need to be
> > compiled with the same compiler. The C++ standard never standardized
> > how the names should be mangled and therefore two different C++
> > compilers cannot talk to each other.
> > It sucks balls, but anytime you're creating a library that multiple
> > applications from different compiler architectures need to use, you
> > should use the standard C interface.
> > > My next major goal for id3lib, however, is a full-fledged C interface. If
> > > using the C++ interface for both platforms isn't tenable, I will speed up that
> > > part of the project and get it out to you ASAP, possibly by next Monday.
> > >
> > > Let me know what you would like.
> > The dll wrapper C interface is not terrible -- it will work ok. If you
> > could expose that interface in linux as well, I would be very happy.
> > This should not be tough -- I could lend a hand there if necessary.
> > --ruaok Freezerburn! All else is only icing. -- Soul Coughing
> > Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://moon.eorbit.net/~robert
> > _______________________________________________
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.freeamp.org/mailman/listinfo/freeamp-dev
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]