A couple of Questions

[John Tytgat]

In message <816b8fa14a.Tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
          Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 28 Jul 2001, in message <f65e3ba14a.Jo at village.uunet.be>,
> John Tytgat <John.Tytgat at aaug.net> wrote:
> 
> > In message <2b15b3a04a.Tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
> >           Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Forget OSLibSupport for now. It is not OSLib, and has nothing to do
> > > with a generation of C++ headers. Ideally, once C++ OSlib headers are
> > > available, a new support library should be written in C++.
> > 
> > Won't that exclude the people who want to compile RISC OS modules using
> > OSLib ?
> > 
> I don't understand why you think it should. I'm not thinking of abandoning
> OSLibSupport; but of introducing OSLibSupport++ in addition.
> 
> I'm certainly insisting that current C header generation is retained, to
> avoid that sort of conflict.

Excellent ;-)

John.
-- 
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home                                 BASS
John.Tytgat at aaug.net                             ARM powered, RISC OS driven