typedef struct CBase { int i; } CBase;
typedef struct CT1 { EXTENDS(CBase) ... } CT1;
typedef struct CT2 { EXTENDS(CT1) ... } CT2;
...
typedef struct CTN { EXTENDS(CTN_1) ... } CTN;
CTN t;
t.i=1; //need not t.CTN_1....CT2.CT1.CBase.i ---complex
CBase* p=&t.CBase; //need not t.CTN_1....CT2.CT1.CBase, need not
(CBase*)&t ---not safe2010/6/11 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com>: > On 10/06/2010 18:07, yuanbin wrote: >> This compiler's extension is valuable > > No, it isn't very valuable, sorry to be blunt. I think you are following a > really wrong path here. You are trying to implement a C++-alike > object-oriented system in C. That makes sense as far as it goes, but if you > find yourself having to propose modifying the C compiler in a direction that > basically makes it speak C++, you might as well just use C++ in the first > place. You want the compiler to automatically choose one of several different > ways to initialise a union according to the data type of the argument you use > to initialise it with; basically, that means you want overloaded constructors. > So you should just use C++, which already is C with overloaded constructors. > And it also already has all the other features that you'll discover you need > in the compiler as you carry along this path. > > By the time you get to the end of your journey, "coo.h" will be an empty > file and all the functionality will have been added to the C compiler until it > turns into a C++ compiler. I think you need to choose a different plan. > > cheers, > DaveK > >
