Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!pur-phy!sho
From: sho@pur-phy (Sho Kuwamoto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: System 7.0 question
Keywords: System 7.0, MacApp
Message-ID: <2340@pur-phy>
Date: 1 Jul 89 18:13:04 GMT
References: <964@cnetlu.UUCP> <119@dbase.UUCP> <2402@internal.Apple.COM> <87@runxtsa.runx.oz> <32754@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: sho@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto)
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., W. Lafayette, IN
Lines: 15

In article <32754@apple.Apple.COM> shebanow@Apple.COM (Andrew Shebanow) writes:
>MacApp will still be written in Object Pascal, but we have
>extended C++ to provide full Object Pascal compatibility, and
>we will supply C++ headers to interface to the MacApp class
>heirarchy (with MacApp 2.1).
>
How much have you extended C++?  Is it just a matter of developing
some sort of syntax to specify that a class comes from object pascal
in the header files, or are calling conventions fundamentally different?
We, who have convinced our bosses that we need to use C++ in our
projects just so we can learn it, want to know!

-Sho
-- 
address: sho@risc.com <-- NOTE:  Not the same as above.