On Feb 18, 2005, at 3:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was done for a very old version of IBM's xlC compiler that had a very- Convert these files into actual templates, perhaps. I haven't looked enough into the implementations to know whether this is possible, or to discover what else might prevent us from doing this. I do know that we use templates elsewhere in Xerces, so this shouldn't break any compiler compatibility...?
rudimentary implementation for template instantiation. Since that
compiler is long gone, I would vote we just do away with those files, and
include their contents in the corresponding .hpp files. Xalan-C++ has
done this from the beginning, without any problems.
On the other hand, there are compilers that supports a separation of
template declaration from template definition, but explicit instantiation
requires more work. What are the chances we would want to do that? Any
opinions?
Unless there's a good reason to bear the pain of specially supporting the really old compilers (by doing something close to what we do today) or supporting explicit instantiation (which presumably would require some additional work or checks), I'd suggest we simply opt for rolling the .c code into the .hpp files.
Any arguments from anybody on why we shouldn't do that?
-jdb
- Change the extensions on the files to something else. SuggestionsThe Rogue Wave library on HP with aCC uses .cc, and the Dinkumware library
are welcome. .tcc comes to mind, though I know gcc uses this for some
of it's code and I don't want to confuse it. Does anybody know of any
standard usage?
shipped on AIX with xlC uses .t, so there doesn't seem to be much of a
consensus out there.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
