> > The STL also provides lists, trees and memory management. Additionnaly, it's > easy to have a "smart pointer" (using reference counting) class. Also, with > templates, it's easy to declare things like a "list of maps from string to int" > (list<map<string,int> >). Sounds nice this lib. Even nicer that it is part of the ansi std. In C world there's still a obscure piece of software needed :-) > > > That being said, I'm not the one who decides whether or not to switch to C++ and > the STL. However, I *think* the switch from glib to the STL would be that hard > to do (assuming everybody knows C++). "Would NOT be that hard if ..." ? One thing I'm not quite clear about: why is the issue 'switch to C++' a discussion? For the BL there's no problem, we'll just link both the BL and PL at binary level. (In human terms, I will compile the BL sources slightly different and the results can simply be combined to one executable). Actually calling C++ functions is somewhat limited, but besides this I see no reason enough to spend so much work in conversion. I tried to compile Overflow on OpenBSD, but got this during configuring. Jean Mark, maybe you could gimme a hint? ----- configure:1976: checking for c++ configure:2008: checking whether the C++ compiler (c++ ) works configure:2024: c++ -o conftest conftest.C 1>&5 In file included from configure:2019: confdefs.h:2: invalid macro name `1' configure: failed program was: #line 2019 "configure" #include "confdefs.h" int main(){return(0);} -----