Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Nick~
|
| On 10/26/05, Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Guy,
| >
| > As a follow-up to a discussion a few days ago about binding parrot to
| > C++ functions, is making it possible to compile parrot with a C++
| > compiler a 'Bad Thing'?
|
| I like the idea, but I tend to like C++ more than reason would dictate.
I have some personal interests in the idea, and in general I think it
may brings substantial benefits to and perspectives on the code base.
I've made a start on it here:
http://www.glencros.demon.co.uk/parrot_c++-patch.txt
I'm still trying to find a portable way of doing
enum_var |= enum_mask
which will suite both C and C++ (as I know that enum_var = (enum)
(enum_var | enum_mask) is rather wordy) .
I thought that
(int) enum_var |= enum_mask
was good enough, but find that C gives a warning about it being
deprecated, and a version of g++ that I tried it on today didn't like it
at all!
I'm probably going to have a quick sidetrack on nci, so if anyone wants
to improve on it or look at imcc, there won't be any overlap of effort.
There are a few cases of -1 being assigned to unsigneds. Anyone know if
that's deliberate?
Cheers,
Nick
