Re: declarations for built-in DEFUN functions

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 09/19/2012 08:34 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 19-Sep-2012, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
> | On 09/18/2012 03:23 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> |
> |>  What about for the functions in the libinterp/corefcn directory?
> |>  Those don't currently have corresponding header files.  Should they,
> |
> | I'd say no.  Reason being that the contents of these files really isn't
> | OOP code using the C++ constructs.  It is the class definitions of C++
> | that typically have a header-file/code-file combo.  I think they could
> | be called .c rather than .cc for valid reasons.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to name those files .c since the
> signature of a DEFUN function requires the C++ class
> octave_value_list.

That's true.  No individual header files though.


> | Similarly, the lex.cc
> | code could be compiled under C which would eliminate some cast warnings.
>
> Similarly, the actions in the lexer depend heavily on C++ classes, so
> I don't see how the generated lex.cc file can be compiled by a C
> compiler.

Sorry, I looked it up and Qhull is the library that is essentially C 
code.  Flex has an object oriented interface in the works.

Dan