Considering making the code C++ portable

[Steve Prior]

Actually I've been doing pretty much exactly as you mention.  Today I
did one pass of removing C++ reserved words used by INN headers
as member values - private and class were the problem ones.  From there
all I really cared about was to be able to compile innrpd which I've started
working on a bit.  BTW I've run into a few K&R style function declarations
there so it would certainly be some amount of work to finish.  To be truthful
I'd be happy (or so I always promise) if I could compile innrpd in C++
because my nature is to use C++ classes for my custom stuff, but I don't
think that INN development is planning to shift into requiring a C++
compiler anytime soon.  I do think that since C++ even on non-OO code
is a more strict compiler that it will help shake out those bugs you
implied are in there somewhere and make the code better even it really stays
C code, and doing so shouldn't break any ANSI C compiler in use today.

Do you agree?

Steve

Russ Allbery wrote:

> Steve Prior <sprior at geekster.com> writes:
>
> > I'm looking over the INN code to make some custom mods and would
> > happen to prefer working with a C++ compiler to do so.
>
> I've thought about this before, and I'd like to make sure that all of
> INN's libraries can be used from inside C++, which means making all of the
> public headers C++-safe.  (For the most part, I think they already are.)
> Making all of the code C++ safe doesn't look to be worth it to me, mostly
> because it's rarely going to be tested and is likely to be constantly
> breaking again.
>
> Is there any way to do what you want to do without having to compile all
> of INN under C++?  How annoying is it?
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>