On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnai@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> I have not seen the original library you use and obviously a C++ is much
> more than this, but perhaps you can try to create a structure to store yo=
ur
> data (as your instance variables) and use bunch of functions that can dea=
l
> with these struct elements... Now all you have to do is to occupy memory
> for the struct and give it's pointer to your functions (C++ does exactly
> that in the background, the pointer is called "this"). So a method withou=
t
> any parameters looks like this:
>
> myMethod( struct myStruct * this );
>
> With one parameter:
>
> myMethod( struct myStruct * this, char * str );
>
> etc... Obviously a C++ compiler is lot more complex than this, you have t=
o
> implement your very own function name mangling as ANSI C would not handle
> usage of same C functions declared with different return type or paramete=
r
> list. For example the "myMethod" was already used in the no-parameter
> example, therefore you should declare:
>
> myMethod_s_( struct myStruct * this, char * str );
> myMethod_i_( struct myStruct * this, int myInt );
> myMethod_u_i_( struct myStruct * this, unsigned myUnsigned, int myInt );
>

Hmm...interesting. I will look into this. I need to take a good look
at how many variables are being used everywhere. I don't think it
would be too onerous to create a struct for it though.

Thanks!

Josh
--=20
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
        -Douglas Adams
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.