Re: C++ class library

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Jim Helman (jimh++at++surreal)
Mon, 26 Sep 94 11:12:34 -0700

> Before its too late, let me ask (or better, beg) that the good old
> (understandable) C API for Performer will still be supplied. C++
> philosophy has a tendency to make hostile takeovers and throw other
> languages out, and I sure hope this won't happen here.

A native C++ API would be in addition. We would *never* abandon
Performer's C API nor its relatively short and understandable names
(we hate typing long names, too).

One can write a C++ program using Performer's current C API, which
is already OO in it's argment and naming structure, i.e.

   pf<Object><Get/Set><Attribute>(pfobject, attribute, ...)

Some of the replies I've gotten have indicated a general desire for
OO-style programming. Please be specific about what you want, i.e.
just object->method calling notation or do you expect to do a lot of
subclassing and extending of our node types, e.g. do you want to do
your own LOD. Some types of featural extension require more than
just a C++ API.

rgds,

-jim helman

jimh++at++surreal.asd.sgi.com
415/390-1151

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:50:33 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.