Re: declarations for built-in DEFUN functions

[John W. Eaton]

On 19-Sep-2012, Daniel J Sebald wrote:

| On 09/18/2012 03:23 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
| 
| > What about for the functions in the libinterp/corefcn directory?
| > Those don't currently have corresponding header files.  Should they,
| 
| I'd say no.  Reason being that the contents of these files really isn't 
| OOP code using the C++ constructs.  It is the class definitions of C++ 
| that typically have a header-file/code-file combo.  I think they could 
| be called .c rather than .cc for valid reasons.

I don't think it makes sense to name those files .c since the
signature of a DEFUN function requires the C++ class
octave_value_list.

| Similarly, the lex.cc 
| code could be compiled under C which would eliminate some cast warnings.

Similarly, the actions in the lexer depend heavily on C++ classes, so
I don't see how the generated lex.cc file can be compiled by a C
compiler.

jwe