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 DAA01092; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 03:27:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA32531 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 03:27:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3P1RpYM017945 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 03:27:52 +0200 Received: (qmail 30896 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2004 01:27:50 -0000 Received: from dsl081-145-152.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO firebird) ([64.81.145.152]) (envelope-sender ) by mail5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Apr 2004 01:27:50 -0000 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:24:43 -0500 From: art yerkes To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net Cc: vanevery@indiegamedesign.com, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] swig like library... Message-Id: <20040424202443.05043abc.ayerkes@speakeasy.net> In-Reply-To: <1082837516.9537.114.camel@pelican.wigram> References: <1082837516.9537.114.camel@pelican.wigram> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; yerkes:01 ayerkes:01 caml-list:01 swig:01 2004:99 sourceforge:01 2004:99 brandon:99 swig:01 wrappers:01 bottleneck:01 forking:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 speakeasy:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On 25 Apr 2004 06:11:56 +1000 skaller wrote: > On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 03:12, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > > skaller wrote: > > > > > > However SWIG isn't very satisfactory.. I'm thinking of > > > writing an Ocaml program for building wrappers. > > > > What is so unsatisfactory about SWIG that you would start a new effort > > and avoid improving SWIG? SWIG has been burned before by adding too many languages too quickly. Ocaml probably wouldn't have been added as easily when you came as it was earlier when I started my module. Currently, we are essentially missing maintainers for TCL, php, and chicken scheme. Obviously, the other maintainers have to work harder when we need to make changes in SWIG's core. I do agree that dynamic loading would partially solve this problem, by allowing modules to be pulled out into separate projects. SWIG isn't strictly *for C*, it's for standard C++ and is not designed to accept core C headers or GNU extensions (this is part of why it works with incomplete type information, and missing includes). It's assumed that the language SWIG will process for already has a standard library, even if it's not specifically stated. I agree that the lack of further automation is a bottleneck for SWIG users. I have considered forking some of the core type functions into the ocaml module for that reason. -- Hey, Adam Smith, keep your invisible hands to yourself! ------------------- 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