On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:

> On 8/16/16 12:53 PM, Joy Arulraj wrote:
>>     > The whole thing would make a lot more sense given a credible design
>>     > for error handling that keeps both languages happy.
>>     Well, getting so that we can at least compile in both systems would
>>     certainly increase the chances of somebody being willing to work on
>>     such a design.  And if nobody ever does, then at least people who want
>>     to fork and do research projects based on PostgreSQL will have
>>     slightly less work to do when they want to hack it up.  PostgreSQL
>>     seems to be a very popular starting point for research work, but a
>>     paper I read recently complained about the antiquity of our code base.
>>     I prefer to call that backward-compatibility, but at some point people
>>     stop thinking of you as backward-compatible and instead think of you
>>     as simply backward.
>> I agree, this was the main reason why we wanted to add support for C++.
> Joy, do you have an idea what a *minimally invasive* patch for C++ support
> would look like? That's certainly the first step here.
Jim -- I believe that the patch will be roughly 6K lines long. The majority
of the changes correspond to handling language keyword conflicts.


I must mention that some of the changes I have made preclude the
possibility of supporting compilation with both C and C++ compilers.
However, I am certain that this limitation can be circumvented with some
clever hacking.

> --
> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
> Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
> Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
> 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461

Reply via email to