|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: raising the bar in language supportRe: raising the bar in language support
From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:11:58 +0100 >Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote: > > I can see where having an xml parser might be usefull. But I don't think > > we need to code one: > > > > have a look at :http://www.grinninglizard.com/tinyxmldocs/files.html > >I'm not so sure using a parser such as this is a great idea. I may be >the only one who cares, but it's written in C++ so not only would we be >adding someone else's C++ code into Rockbox we'd have to write C++ >wrapper functions so our existing C code could make use of it. More C++ >code. I, for one, like the fact that Rockbox is entirely written in C >(well, minus the assembly). > >Dave I agree C++ is not inside Rockbox coding standards, and I also happen to personally disklike it. The code isn't that big, it could be "unwrapped" without too much effort. BC _______________________________________________ http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox Received on 2005-07-11 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |