Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: C++ binary classes (was: typeof() and virtuals and overloading, oh my!) Message-ID: Date: 10 Apr 91 16:57:14 GMT References: <19093@milton.u.washington.edu> <157@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> <162@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> <27FA1D8B.50C3@tct.com> <1317@appli.se> <662@taumet.com> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Distribution: comp Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California Lines: 20 In-reply-to: steve@taumet.com's message of 9 Apr 91 15:38:47 GMT >>>>> On 9 Apr 91 15:38:47 GMT, steve@taumet.com (Stephen Clamage) said: Stephen> It is just not a good idea to modify class definitions without Stephen> recompiling all code which uses those definitions. This probably Stephen> limits the usefulness of binary-only libraries. What if there were two layers to C++ libraries of objects? The first (innermost) layer is the core of the object and knows how to really perform each method. The second is really just a wrapper for the first that doesn't show any details of the first to users of the second. Can this be accomplished with C++? Would it be useful? Would there be too much overhead to make this viable? Just kicking an idea around. -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"