"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> wrote in message news:6.1.2.0.2.20041106152208.048c5c70@mail.rudbek.com... | At Saturday 2004-11-06 10:11, you wrote: | >| Hubert Holin wrote: | >| > | >| > I must say I *strongly* disagree with having code with is C | >| > compatible, mainly because this will greatly hamper | >| genericity (or at | >| > least convenient and safe parametrisation of code). | >| > | >| > Even if the code turns up only feasible for, say, float and | >| > double, I strongly believe it should be templated upon the floating | >| > type, with specializations if need be. The C library in C++ | >| clothing | >| > approach is just plain wrong, IMHO. | >| > | >| | >| I completely agree with this. It makes no sense to have a C++ library | >| that does not use the full strength of the language. | > | > | >This view has already been expressed several times | > | >- but we have to face the fact that | >C99 and Walter Brown's functions are already in TR-1 to achieve C | >compatibility. | >I consider it essential to follow their example. | | F*** C comparability!!! (I gotta go make that bumper sticker suCks | (with the C in a different color)) | the language should have died a decade ago. | In case anyone else doesn't get it, C++ is simply a better | language. Staying tied to a dinosaur is foolish. It might be worth looking at what benefits we can get out of a templated version. Would it for example, be possible to use the code with a big_floats class? At any rate, wouldn't it be possible to have a genuine C++ version with exceptions and all and then provide simple wrappers for C compatibility: extern "C" { void foo( ... ); } ? -Thorsten