[antlr-interest] More, Status of C++ backend?

[Jim Idle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke A. Guest [mailto:laguest at archeia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:43 PM
> To: Jim Idle
> Cc: antlr-interest at antlr.org
> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] More, Status of C++ backend?
> 
> On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 18:36 -0800, Jim Idle wrote:
> > Possible, but the C runtime already has a string too and I prefer to
> > keep away from third party dependencies, even if they are decent 
ones.
> 
> I have to say that it really does make sense to have the C++ sources
> depend on the C sources. i.e. for the C++ to use the C string sources 
is
> fine IMO. I mean what would be the point in rewriting the string code
> specifically for C++?

Yes - I can see arguments all around really though, so I want to produce 
a flexible solution basically and this may end up being two targets - 
one being a lightweight set of wrapper classes that make the syntax of 
dealing with tokens and so on in actions neater than the C equivalent, 
and one being more akin to the current 2.7 C++ runtime. My feeling is 
that there is not much advantage to that, and that making the C more C++ 
compatible is the first order of business.

Jim