[openbeosstorage] Re: R5 Pro CD vs. partition/intel
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 21:12:10 +0100 CET
Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > BTW, I really tend to switch to C++ in that module. I believe, that
> > would make it a lot more elegant and less error prone -- I think, I
> > found another error concerning extended partitions on sessions with
> > offset > 0.
> Fine by me. I'd just as soon use moderated C++ pretty much
> everywhere,
> honestly.
No problem, as long as it interfaces with standard C, you can use C++
everywhere :-)
I also like it much better than plain C.
Adios...
Axel.
- References:
- [openbeosstorage] Re: R5 Pro CD vs. partition/intel
- From: Tyler Dauwalder
Other related posts:
- » [openbeosstorage] R5 Pro CD vs. partition/intel
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: R5 Pro CD vs. partition/intel
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: R5 Pro CD vs. partition/intel
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: R5 Pro CD vs. partition/intel
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: R5 Pro CD vs. partition/intel
- [openbeosstorage] Re: R5 Pro CD vs. partition/intel
- From: Tyler Dauwalder