
|
[openbeos]
||
[Date Prev]
[02-2003 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[02-2003 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[openbeos] Re: C++ in the kernel
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:11:43 +0100 CET
"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> The second newsletter article Charlie was referring to is a good
> introduction (does anybody know, where to get the sample code?). I'd
> like to have more details, though. I've been trying for months to
> convince Axel to write an article, but he's just too lazy. ;-)
Yes, I am :-)
You don't have to convince me to write one, because I wanted to do that
anway, it's just that I need to find the time to do so :-)
> You might also want to have a look at src/add-ons/kernel/file_systems
> /
> bfs/cpp.{h,cpp}.
> I think, cpp.cpp should be linked into the kernel and cpp.h made
> available as public kernel header.
As long as we don't create a dependence on a specific compiler version,
I agree with you here. OTOH that step would require a newsletter ;-)
> > - STL: not sure why
> Mmh, uses exceptions for one. And comes with a dynamic library.
But could be statically linked.
> > And here are a couple I'm specifically curious about:
> > - new and delete
> No problem. The operators have to be overridden as in cpp.h. I
> dislike
> the `#define new new (_dontthrow)' there, though. And I don't think
> `extern nothrow_t _dontthrow;' is needed, for `nothrow' should be
> defined anyway.
Yes, you are right "nothrow" is already defined and works okay (will
update it shortly).
What would you suggest to replace the #define with?
> > - templates (and no, I don't need to know who thinks templates are
> > God
> > given and who thinks they're the spawn of the devil, just whether
> > I
> > can use them or not, thank you :-)
> Can be used without restriction. This is a compile time only feature.
Exactly!
Adios...
Axel.
|

|