JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> writes: > Is there a problem with using .so for internal libraries instead of > "dll"...
I think not but I haven't tested it. The problem with using .so instead of .dll is that producing this non-standard extension may not be easy or possible depending on the build system/tool (e.g., libtool). Also, you never know how other pieces of the system (like antivirus) will react to a file that looks like a DLL but is called something else. > ... if it simplifies the code? I don't think it simplifies that much and the potential (and unknown) downside is significant. Thanks for the review, Boris
