March 04, 2012 dstep instead of SWIG (was Re: CWrap - higher abstraction level for calling C functions) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg Attachments: | On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:40:20 +0100 Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote: > DStep is currently used only for automatically generating bindings for C functions and Objective-C classes and methods. Do oyu find that dstep is capable to be used for binding whole C libs instead of using SWIG? Sincerely, Gour -- Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment. http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810 |
March 04, 2012 Re: dstep instead of SWIG (was Re: CWrap - higher abstraction level for calling C functions) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gour | On 2012-03-04 16:13, Gour wrote: > On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:40:20 +0100 > Jacob Carlborg<doob@me.com> wrote: > >> DStep is currently used only for automatically generating bindings >> for C functions and Objective-C classes and methods. > > Do oyu find that dstep is capable to be used for binding whole C libs > instead of using SWIG? > > > Sincerely, > Gour It's not there yet but that's the idea. -- /Jacob Carlborg |
March 05, 2012 Re: dstep instead of SWIG | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg Attachments: | On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:18:19 +0100 Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote: > It's not there yet but that's the idea. Thank you. It makes dstep attractive alternative then. What would be some pro/cons of dstep vs SWIG? Sincerely, Gour -- But a person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord. http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810 |
March 05, 2012 Re: dstep instead of SWIG | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gour | On 2012-03-05 09:42, Gour wrote: > On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:18:19 +0100 > Jacob Carlborg<doob@me.com> wrote: > >> It's not there yet but that's the idea. > > Thank you. It makes dstep attractive alternative then. > > What would be some pro/cons of dstep vs SWIG? > > > Sincerely, > Gour > > Well, I'm not familiar with SWIG but a few pros for DStep would probably be: * Specifically targeted for D * Handles Objective-C * No need for interface files * Uses a complete frontend to do the parsing * Static linking Pros for SWIG * Handles C++ * In a more complete sate -- /Jacob Carlborg |
March 05, 2012 Re: dstep instead of SWIG | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg Attachments:
| Il giorno lun, 05/03/2012 alle 10.25 +0100, Jacob Carlborg ha scritto: > Pros for SWIG > > * Handles C++ And classes, of course! > * In a more complete sate |
March 05, 2012 Re: dstep instead of SWIG | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg Attachments: | On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:25:28 +0100 Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote: > * Specifically targeted for D That's a good one. > * Handles Objective-C No interest for it atm. > * No need for interface files This is also nice, but I wonder if one can tailor D side of the binding or dstep is meant to just provide wrapper for C function? In the latter case, glueing dstsep with CWrape would be nice. > * Uses a complete front-end to do the parsing > * Static linking Those are very nice as well...I might try dstep, so you can expect some issues @github. ;) > Pros for SWIG > > * Handles C++ We anticipate that our C++ usage in D is limited just to GUI libs and hopefully there will be new wxD soon. > * In a more complete sate That's true atm, but I'm not sure how much is klickverbot committed to work on it...so, having specific binding tool for D is very nice in any case. Sincerely, Gour -- |
March 05, 2012 Re: dstep instead of SWIG | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gour | On 2012-03-05 10:49, Gour wrote: > On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:25:28 +0100 > Jacob Carlborg<doob@me.com> wrote: > >> * Specifically targeted for D > > That's a good one. > >> * Handles Objective-C > > No interest for it atm. > >> * No need for interface files > > This is also nice, but I wonder if one can tailor D side of the binding > or dstep is meant to just provide wrapper for C function? Currently it's only meant to just provide bindings. > In the latter case, glueing dstsep with CWrape would be nice. > >> * Uses a complete front-end to do the parsing >> * Static linking > > Those are very nice as well...I might try dstep, so you can expect some > issues @github. ;) Unfortunately it's not in a state where it's ready to be tested yet. Sure you can always test it but there's no point in reporting issues for something I know isn't finished or working. But help developing the tool is always welcome. >> Pros for SWIG >> >> * Handles C++ > > We anticipate that our C++ usage in D is limited just to GUI libs and > hopefully there will be new wxD soon. > >> * In a more complete sate > > That's true atm, but I'm not sure how much is klickverbot committed to > work on it...so, having specific binding tool for D is very nice in any > case. > > > Sincerely, > Gour > -- /Jacob Carlborg |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation