Re: GEP / C++ bindings ...

[Dan Kegel <dank kegel com>]

Murray Cumming wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 17:28, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > >   2. It would require ORBit/C++ to reimplement lots of
> > > currently-undocumented low-level code. That would be a wasteful
> > > duplication of code and effort. And I know it's beyond my abilities.
> >
> >       Well; how much is there; in fact I think Gergo has done rather a good
> > job of keeping this code out of sight and down in volume - isn't that so
> > Gergo ?
> 
> It isn't an issue of the code that we've added. It's about the private C
> code that we've used. I'm not confident that you will want to, or be
> allowed to, break ORBit2 up into smaller libraries at this stage. I
> guess you could just move some functions into other header files and
> install those headers, and maybe reorganise the ORBit2 build structure
> to reflect their change. But isn't that kind of change both risky and
> API-breaking?

I'm getting a bit confused -- guess I'm not in the know about orbit2's structure.

I assume we're all trying to figure out how to merge the C++ bindings
for Orbit2 into the mainline, right?

Or are some people arguing that the C++ bindings should be left as
an optional patch?  Or abandoned?
- Dan