2010/12/14 pancake <[email protected]>: > On 12/13/10 19:30, Aleksander Wabik wrote: >>> -1 portability is VERY important if we want to use vala outside >>> gnu/linux. > What i'm proposing is just simpler. It keeps compatiblity with compiler and > allows to use different backends to implement such kind of types. But > requires > to add support for operator overloading in vapis, which requires some > discussion (as I already talk about this a year ago with Jürg). > > The use of complex numbers can be defined in a vapi file which make it use > the C99-gcc magic you like, but it will also support other kind of backends, > like native one or based on OpenSSL, GMP or MPFR.
I have to say... If you start restricting certain features (such as operator overriding) to vapi's, won't that just encourage every project to include their own vapi...? Or is this considered acceptable? The principal is that if it's there, people will use it. If it's popular, people will use it a lot. I for one, dearly miss operator overloading. I know it can be used very badly, but it can also be used very well. _______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
