You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The obvious choice would be an output option for C++. The generated code could then use classes instead of structs; and the classes could have constructors, and be more OOP-y and syntactically compact. The goal is to use the same protocol.xml file but specify on the command line the 'C' or 'C++' dialect. Obviously C and C++ code would need to produce the same packet contents over the wire.
In the future one could imagine extending this concept to other languages: Go, Swift, C#, etc. That would obviously be a lot more work, but the same principles should be obeyed: the protocol file doesn't need to change, and the project just chooses the language that is most natural for it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The obvious choice would be an output option for C++. The generated code could then use classes instead of structs; and the classes could have constructors, and be more OOP-y and syntactically compact. The goal is to use the same protocol.xml file but specify on the command line the 'C' or 'C++' dialect. Obviously C and C++ code would need to produce the same packet contents over the wire.
In the future one could imagine extending this concept to other languages: Go, Swift, C#, etc. That would obviously be a lot more work, but the same principles should be obeyed: the protocol file doesn't need to change, and the project just chooses the language that is most natural for it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: