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. https://github.com/jarulraj/postgresql-cpp/compare/182656bf32b99c96e5cd9dc59ece4c20149787fb...7ef6f472b53a83a4cedd0222b41345c0f74fae1e 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 >
