Subject: Re: LISP and C++ From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1999/11/18 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * William Deakin <email@example.com> | Yes. You either use C calling convention for C++, and lose 50% of the | reason why I program in C++ and not C or wrestle with some ugly | non-readable names, just beggers belief. Ugly, ugly and more ugly. but it's C++ that is being ugly in this situation -- we're just trying to cope. had the proverbial They standardized their name mangling, nobody would have needed to know about it, and just about anybody could use a name that wasn't mangled, but instead some longer form that would contain the same information. neither beauty nor elegance of design are part of the reason people use C++, so this will never win an argument. and C++ people are forever mired in a conflation of representation and value. I was predictably horrified to read that Bjarne suggests that people use _different_ name mangling schemes. the shock, the pain. :) | People have suggested ways round this, using trampoline code, for example, | some of which are moderately elegant. But I am of a mind so as not to be | persuaded other than that this a type of the lowest form of hackery and | kludge. but shirk not from necessity hoping that it would thereby resolve itself. C++ compiler vendors should make an effort to interface with Common Lisp. after all, they have the stuff people claim to want to talk to, and C++ is at fault for being badly standardized. so go talk to the guys who made up this stupid problem in the first place. #:Erik -- Attention Microsoft Shoppers! MS Monopoly Money 6.0 are now worthless.