[ODE] C++ wrappers

[Russ Smith]

> Anyway, I've noticed that for the classes that have types (joints,
> geoms, etc.), you don't use different derived classes for the
> different types.  They would seem to map naturally, and if you did
> this, you'd get run time type checking, etc.  It just seems more
> object oriented, less error prone, etc.  Why did you do them they way
> you did?  Am I missing something?

no ... i simply didn't bother much with the existing C++ wrappers.
so now they're out of date. i didn't consider that the C++ interface
added much genuinely useful functionality ... although proper
polymorphism for joint and geom types would be useful. yes, i would
definitely be interested in your C++ wrappers when they are done.

russ.

--
Russell Smith
http://www.q12.org