Re: Illegal C++

[Wiz Aus]

> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>
> To: Wiz Aus <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Illegal C++
> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:33:10 +0200
>
> Wiz Aus wrote:
> > Ok, now I'm trying to actually play with the lilypond code -- but it seems 
> > to be full of completely illegal C++ - like trying to cast class member 
> > functions to standalone functions etc. etc.
> > The cases I've found so far are all very easy to fix, just by adding proxy 
> > function definitions in the macros that set these things up, so I can't 
> > work out why it would be written like this in the first place.
>
> Because we want to skip the (proxy) function calls for performance reasons.
Um...lilypond uses an interpretive language (Scheme), goes via TEX and PS to 
produce output, and you're worried about a few extra C++ function calls?  I 
would be flabbergasted if this made any measurable difference to lilypond's 
performance.

Anyway, the #define's I've changed can easily be #ifdef'd out to allow for 
different compilers.

> > Has anyone ever tried to get the code compiling on another C++ compiler?
>
> No, and it has never been our intention to support other compilers.
Why even use C++ if you don't care about C++ conformance?
And when gcc 4.0 comes out and they decide to change to the Microsoft 
fastcall callling convention under Windows (which passes the "this" pointer 
in a register) in order to be compatible with existing MS libraries, you're 
happy to be stuck with having to use an old compiler?

FWIW, I have the whole thing compiling and linking under MSVC 7.1.  
Unfortunately I'm having a problem getting libguile to work (it just gives 
me "ERROR: Unbound variable: define"), but it doesn't seem an insurmountable 
hurdle.

_________________________________________________________________
Access your Hotmail straight from your i-mode mobile 
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fadsfac%2Enet%2Flink%2Easp%3Fcc%3DTEL175%2E16267%2E0&_t=751223833&_m=EXT