View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 06, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
On 1/26/12, bls <bizprac@orange.fr> wrote:
> Hi Andrej,
> first of all : it is NOT my intention to pick on your nerves.
> I am just curious and , ahem, a bit impatience.
>
> Have you made some progress on the code generator ?
> Are you running into problems, hard to solve problems ?
>
> Well, it would be nice to get some feedback. I am really keen to see the code. (cause I'll try,based on your code, to create bindings to the wxShapeFramework... )
> Kind regards,
> Bjoern (bls)
> PS Have you noticed the wxPHP update.
> PPS Wouldn't make more sense to use the new Tango 2 'cause it has XPath support ? Given XPath support is imited, but I think good enough for this task.

I'm working on this around the clock. If everything goes ok I might
have the wxc wrapper done by the end of the week, but I'm not making
any promises.

I'm not having much difficulty, there are some edge-cases here and
there but it's fine. PS: Yes, however I'm now basing the wxc generated
code around the existing wxc binding, and not wxPhp. wxPhp uses some
3rd party library that has to do a lot of magic to interact with a C
library, so it's code generators are not that useful to me. The
existing wxc bindings already have memory management in place which I
can reuse. PPS: I'm parsing the xml files fine, there's no need to use
tango at this point.

I'm not publishing any code yet since I don't want people to do
duplicate work and make pulls, we'll end up stepping on each other's
toes. And work can't be done in parallel since you need wxc before you
can generate wxd wrappers.

I'd ask for a little bit of patience! Thanks. :)
February 06, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
On 27 January 2012 18:38, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 January 2012 at 18:01:48 UTC, Zachary Lund wrote:
>>
>> I do not mind using a C library in D because of how straight forward it
>> is. But simply mentioning C++ in D seems to add unneeded complexity which
>> should be avoided. I think the answer to a question such as "What's the
>> alternative to Qt in D?" should not be "Qt bindings" but maybe a library
>> which imitates the implementation and/or interface of Qt UI widgets in
>> native D.
>
>
> http://www.ohloh.net/p/qt/estimated_cost
> some scary numbers


To be taken with a pinch of salt.  I raised an eyebrow or two when
looking at the estimated cost for GDC. ;-)


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
February 06, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
On Monday, 6 February 2012 at 11:25:09 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> To be taken with a pinch of salt.  I raised an eyebrow or two 
> when
> looking at the estimated cost for GDC. ;-)

A C++ to D autoporter? That's an interesting idea.
February 06, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
On 02/06/2012 03:06 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 1/26/12, bls<bizprac@orange.fr>  wrote:
>> Hi Andrej,
>> first of all : it is NOT my intention to pick on your nerves.
>> I am just curious and , ahem, a bit impatience.
>>
>> Have you made some progress on the code generator ?
>> Are you running into problems, hard to solve problems ?
>>
>> Well, it would be nice to get some feedback. I am really keen to see the code. (cause I'll try,based on your code, to create bindings to the wxShapeFramework... )
>> Kind regards,
>> Bjoern (bls)
>> PS Have you noticed the wxPHP update.
>> PPS Wouldn't make more sense to use the new Tango 2 'cause it has XPath support ? Given XPath support is imited, but I think good enough for this task.
>
> I'm working on this around the clock. If everything goes ok I might
> have the wxc wrapper done by the end of the week, but I'm not making
> any promises.
>
> I'm not having much difficulty, there are some edge-cases here and
> there but it's fine. PS: Yes, however I'm now basing the wxc generated
> code around the existing wxc binding, and not wxPhp. wxPhp uses some
> 3rd party library that has to do a lot of magic to interact with a C
> library, so it's code generators are not that useful to me. The
> existing wxc bindings already have memory management in place which I
> can reuse. PPS: I'm parsing the xml files fine, there's no need to use
> tango at this point.
>
> I'm not publishing any code yet since I don't want people to do
> duplicate work and make pulls, we'll end up stepping on each other's
> toes. And work can't be done in parallel since you need wxc before you
> can generate wxd wrappers.
>
> I'd ask for a little bit of patience! Thanks. :)

Very very good news. Thanks Andrej!!!!
February 06, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:06:44 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm working on this around the clock. If everything goes ok I might
> have the wxc wrapper done by the end of the week, but I'm not making
> any promises.

Thank you very much for your efforts!!

> I'd ask for a little bit of patience! Thanks. :)

No problem. We've all the patience of the world. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour


-- 
The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks 
himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out 
by the three modes of material nature.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
February 11, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
Just a small update:

542 classes are successfully generated (and buildable). 132+ are left to go.

I've ran into a few issues where the interface files (from which the
xml is built) are not in sync with the code. So there might be missing
types definitions, or wrong types in methods, etc. But these can be
worked around by adding extra type definitions in the generator (IOW
there's no need to manually touch the .cpp files by hand).

So wxc won't be done by this week, but it's progressing pretty good so
far. Stay tuned..
February 11, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
On 2/11/12, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:
> 542 classes

Sorry, when I said "classes" I meant wxc class wrappers. The D classes
are not yet generated until I get wxc done, but wxc is 95% of the
source of difficulty. Generating wxd should be easy after that.
February 11, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
On 02/11/2012 11:45 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Just a small update:
>
> 542 classes are successfully generated (and buildable). 132+ are left to go.
>
> I've ran into a few issues where the interface files (from which the
> xml is built) are not in sync with the code. So there might be missing
> types definitions, or wrong types in methods, etc. But these can be
> worked around by adding extra type definitions in the generator (IOW
> there's no need to manually touch the .cpp files by hand).
>
> So wxc won't be done by this week, but it's progressing pretty good so
> far. Stay tuned..

Chapeau Andrej !

Silly Question .. did you try to  to use regen (or however it is named) 
script to re-create the doxygen xml files ?

Another question regarding wxC. Will there be an option to generate a 
shared library so/dll ?

Thanks (and please keep us informed.)
Bjoern
February 12, 2012
wxD bindings (was Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.)
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:45:06 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:

> 542 classes are successfully generated (and buildable). 132+ are left
> to go.

Great!

> I've ran into a few issues where the interface files (from which the
> xml is built) are not in sync with the code. So there might be missing
> types definitions, or wrong types in methods, etc. But these can be
> worked around by adding extra type definitions in the generator (IOW
> there's no need to manually touch the .cpp files by hand).

I saw your messages in wx-dev and wonder what will be the way to keep
those files in sync or, at least, detect there are inconsistencies?

> So wxc won't be done by this week, but it's progressing pretty good so
> far. Stay tuned..

All the best!!


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 
Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And 
whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
February 12, 2012
Re: automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.
On 2/11/12, bls <bizprac@orange.fr> wrote:
> Silly Question .. did you try to  to use regen (or however it is named)
> script to re-create the doxygen xml files ?

That's what I do, yes. The wxPhp xml files were a little outdated anyway.

> Another question regarding wxC. Will there be an option to generate a
> shared library so/dll ?

For wxc I'll have to provide both static and shared library support.

win32-only: I've tried statically linking 2.9.3 via optlink but it
couldn't handle the vast amount of symbol names. Even if that was
resolved (it won't be) I can't use optlink anymore since wxWidgets has
basically dropped support for DMC, and I have to use either g++ or MSC
to build wxWidgets. Remember that Optlink can't link to COFF. The
alternatives that I know of are DMD+Unilink + static/dynamic library,
DMD+Optlink + dynamic library, or GDC + static/dynamic library.
There's also LDC but I haven't used it for D2 yet.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home