nanogui: State of the nanogui union?
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From:
"Vidar Hokstad" ####@####.####
Date:
29 Sep 1999 12:38:44 -0000
Message-Id: <19990929123354.26825.qmail@mail.relight.com>
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:15:41 -0400 you wrote:
>Everyone one: please brace yourselves for this next question. :-)
>
>How about C++ instead of macro hackery?
I thought about it, but decided against it for since reasons. For our
box it isn't that critical, since we'll have the C++ libraries on it
anyways, but for PDA's etc., where including a C++ library might consume
almost all of the available memory, whereas with C you could get away
with only a very stripped C library, C++ is a nuisance.
Besides, all the macro hackery is in one 99 lines long header file...
The rest is a lot cleaner thanks to the macro ugliness. I'm sure it
can be done even cleaner too, if more time is spent on it.
It's a very simple system with classes with only virtual methods, and
objects which contains a pointer to the appropriate class structure as
it's first member.
>Brad ducks. :-)
/me whips out his bazooka and blows Brad's head off... :-)
Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical stuff.
Regards,
Vidar
