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 SAA16839; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:45:31 +0200 (MET DST) 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 SAA17055 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:45:29 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from eposta.kablonet.com.tr ([62.248.102.66]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i55GjREV005048 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:45:28 +0200 Received: (qmail 30801 invoked by uid 1007); 5 Jun 2004 16:54:16 -0000 Received: from exa@kablonet.com.tr by eposta.kablonet.com.tr by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.21 (clamdscan: 0.70-rc. Clear:RC:0(81.214.24.132):. Processed in 0.216565 secs); 05 Jun 2004 16:54:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orion) (exa@kablonet.com.tr@81.214.24.132) by 0 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2004 16:54:16 -0000 From: Eray Ozkural Reply-To: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr Organization: Bilkent University CS Dept. To: ronniec95@lineone.net Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Efficient C++ interfacing? Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:45:14 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.51 References: <40800C10000A6ABC@mk-cpfrontend-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com> In-Reply-To: <40800C10000A6ABC@mk-cpfrontend-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com> Cc: "caml" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406051945.14906.exa@kablonet.com.tr> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40C1F8A7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; eray:01 ozkural:01 caml-list:01 interfacing:01 2004:99 interfacing:01 kde:01 swig:01 eray:01 ozkural:01 erayo:01 bilkent:01 bilkent:01 ankara:01 kde:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sunday 30 May 2004 14:47, you wrote: > Hi, > > I've done a fair amount of C interfacing with Ocaml. Although the > auto-conversion tools are ok, it's usually simpler (and definitely faster > in terms of performance) to roll your own I've found. And it's actually not > that complicated for most things. > > Also with handrolling your own interface you'll get something that is more > ocaml like and makes more sense (from a usability perspective) than auto > generated ones most of the time. This is from my experience only, and YMMV. What if we would like to generate bindings for a huge moving target like Qt or KDE libraries? It would take an inordinate amount of time to update such bindings manually. Do you suggest that SWIG sucks as far as ocaml goes? Best Regards, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara KDE Project: http://www.kde.org http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://malfunct.iuma.com GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C ------------------- 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