Ryan Gammon wrote:
> Koos Vriezen wrote:
> 
> >Kevin Krammer wrote:
> >On Wednesday 15 September 2004 04:14, Ryan Gammon wrote:
> >  
> >
> >OT, but although COM/XPCOM sounds pretty cool, unless one wants all
> >interfaces known at front (eg. in kdelibs) 
> >
> 
> The "advantage" of com is that you don't need to know the interfaces up 
> front.
> 
> >so dynamic_cast will do, for
> >this the compiler needs support for this, no?
> >
> 
> You don't need dynamic_cast.

Oh sorry, the 'unless one wants all interfaces known at front (eg. in 
kdelibs)' was meant as a subordinate in that sentence. I know that that
is not needed with COM (I actually read 'Inside COM' six or more years
ago. The question was, indeed OT and only for the interested, that I 
remembered MS had to add support for it for their C/C++ compiler. Also I
recall Mozilla needs some assembler for XPCom. How this exactly works was
my question.

[..]

>     pUnk->QueryInterface(IID_KOOS, (void**) &pKoos)

Probably can be done w/o asesmbler. but one has to trust the interface 
hasn't changed over time of course.

Koos
_______________________________________________
kde-multimedia mailing list
kde-multimedia@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-multimedia