Dave Held wrote: > > we'd need to do some wholesale revisions of internal APIs and > > coding practices. > > No you wouldn't. You could make incremental revisions that offer a > very gentle learning curve to C++. My suggestion is to convert the > codebase iteratively, taking only small sure steps at each iteration. > The internal APIs would evolve, not be overturned and replaced. And > the coding practices encouraged by C++ generally lead to safer and > more readable code, but would still not prevent people from writing > idiomatic C within C++ if they really wanted/needed to (except where > features have been converted to C++, of course).
I think there are some features we could use in C++. As a simple example, "//" for comments. Howevrer, C++ is a far larger language than C, and I am concerned we would be unable to control which features of C++ got into our code and which did not, leading to a slower, overly complex, uneven hunk of code. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
