|
From: | Hans Aberg |
Subject: | Re: proposal: simplify prologue alternatives into %code |
Date: | Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:01:57 +0100 |
On 9 Jan 2007, at 15:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
One reason against making this the required method of implementation, is that one may end up with a polymorphic class library, which uses its own way of extracting the objects.Not a big case of interface mismatch.
If you think that, you are of course free to fix it your own way.You idea is to let the C++ polymorphic class implementation to emulate the implementation of a C 'union', and such ties between unrelated features in different languages does not seem wise to me.
Hans Aberg
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |