From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA12006; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:12:03 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA11179 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:12:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail3.speakeasy.net (mail3.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id i0TGC1v10921 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:12:02 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 828 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2004 16:12:00 -0000 Received: from dsl081-145-152.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO apprentice) ([64.81.145.152]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 29 Jan 2004 16:12:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:32:13 -0600 From: art yerkes To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CamlDL/Abstract pointers problem Message-Id: <20040129103213.3ad796f8.ayerkes@speakeasy.net> In-Reply-To: <40169E8D00006A9F@mk-cpfrontend-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com> References: <20040129150209.GB30750@redhat.com> <40169E8D00006A9F@mk-cpfrontend-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; yerkes:01 ayerkes:01 caml-list:01 pointers:01 2004:99 ronniec:01 lineone:01 swig:01 swig:01 camlidl:01 0000:98 speakeasy:01 wrote:03 abstract:03 abstract:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:52:10 +0000 ronniec95@lineone.net wrote: > I understand that bit ok. But what I wanted to know is why CAMLIDL was not > doing this for me... as I said in my original email, I'm quite happy handwriting > all this stuff (Abstract_tag/Custom_tag all ok for me )- it works fine, > but is quite dull! You might try SWIG for this (http://www.swig.org/). It will do the tedious part, at least. -- "Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration." - S. Kelly-Bootle ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners