C++ interop - what to do about long and unsigned long?

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

So, can we talk about virtual by default again?
Daniel Murphy was behind it wrt c++ compatibility.
It's still driving me insane. All things I said will happen do happen,
constantly.
On 12 Sep 2014 09:25, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 9/11/2014 8:39 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>
>> Is C++ interop really that important or is it another one of those "if D
>> had
>> this, *then* I would use it!" dismissals.  C interop is clearly crucial.
>> Operating system interfaces are written in C, and not being able to call C
>> functions is hugely limiting.  But C++?  I honestly can't envision a
>> situation
>> where I would actually care about C++ interop.  Is this truly a blocker
>> for some
>> people?  Like an actual, honest blocker and not just a false flag?
>>
>
> C++ was adopted because one could gradually ease into it from C. This will
> never be true for C++ => D, but many people have reported it was nearly
> impossible to transition to D for them because they had engines, libraries,
> whatever, in C++ and it was just not reasonable to wrap them with a C
> interface. So they just stayed with C++.
>
> Considering that some of them spent some significant effort trying to do
> it suggests it is an honest blocker (and I've seen plenty of false flags).
>
> Interestingly, D's "competitor" languages do not offer any migration path
> from C++, and some are even poor at hooking up with C code. Having a better
> story with D offers us potentially a huge advantage.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140912/bbda664c/attachment-0001.html>