A reader commented on my first blog entry, and my first writing about C++/CLI in over a year, stating the following RE: The Revised C++ Language Design Supporting .NET -- Part 1 12/2/2003 4:15 PM Tim Sweeney You poor, confused soul. This is...

In part 1 of this discussion [the January 28 th Blog entry], I pointed out a different behavior between the C++ and CLR Object Models with regard the identity of a derived polymorphic object during the construction of its base class sub-objects. Under...

A reader, Chris Hanson, writes: re: A Fundamental Difference in Class Behavior between the Native and Managed Object Model In other words, Managed C++ actually behaves like an object-oriented language, such as Smalltalk or Objective-C. An...

I have used two primary metaphors in my discussions of bring C++ to the .NET platform. In terms of the different physics of the two object models, I have distinguished them as Kansas and Oz, and claimed with little apparent success that the physics of...

The elimination of the virtual mechanism in the invocation of a virtual function is in most cases trivial when measured against the elimination of any call invocation at all – that is, when the call is expanded inline. An inline expansion not only...

A reader, J. Daniel Smith , inquiries You wrote “The absence of const support in the base class library… “; Can you elaborate any on what the plans are for “const” as they relate to C++/CLI and C#? I...

A reader, Johan Ericsson , comments re: Further Discussion of MI and general C++/CLI design issues I appreciate your discussion of the multiple inheritance issue. Is the performance problem of MI only inherent in virtual base clases...

Daniel O'Connell writes, re: Followup: The Absence of MI Hmm, Copy constructors...One would hope that the implementation and documentation is done *very* carefully(IE, marked as non-CLS compliant or implemented to work with ICloneable). I...

That same reader from the previous two posting responds as follows, with some editing. I am responding only because it gives me an excuse to speak of technical implementation issues, which I enjoy, and which readers often find interesting. With regard...

That same reader from the previous posting now writes the following, where he quotes me and then makes his comment [this is great, by the way. this is much more engaging than the technical writing]: “There are some significant implementation...

A reader writes the following from the initial posting on this blog: re: The Revised C++ Language Design Supporting .NET -- Part 1 “Probably the most conspicuous and eyebrow-lifting change between the original and revised design of the dynamic...

What’s Different in the Revised Language Definition? __try_cast becomes safe_cast<> Modifying an existing structure is a much different and, in some sense, a more difficult experience than crafting the initial structure; there...