Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: raising the bar in language support
Re: 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).
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.
Received on 2005-07-11