[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> > A reflective framework could be in three stages: a preprocessing >> stage (which creates the reflection data), an optional code >> > generation/transformation stage, then a compilation stage. In this >> sense, it would be both a compile and run-time framework. > >> Sounds like a great idea to me. > > A couple more questions. > > I'm afraid I don't have the time or expertise to create a full C++ > compiler (tho it would be interesting to try using Spirit). If I were to > base a reflection framework on PDT, its parser and toolset comes as > binaries for the following platforms: > > alpha > apple > hp9000s700 > linux > rs6000 > sgi32 > sgin32 > sgi64 > solaris2 > hitachi > Windows > t3e > > The actual PDT reflection library is open-source and portable. Would > this be acceptable for submission to Boost?
Depends on the license. Open Source isn't enough, it has to meet the Boost license guidelines. > I don't know if there's a > policy about library submissions depending on closed-source tools. I > don't think there should be a problem (after all, most compilers Boost > supports are closed-source), but it seems prudent to ask up-front. I'm confused. Above you said it was open-source, now you talk about it being closed-source? > Also, it seems to me that PDT's license meets Boost's requirements. Can > anyone verify this (I've appended it below)? > > Finally, is there anyone interested in working on a reflection > framework? Does anyone have other ideas on approaching this problem? Any > comments at all? I'll consolidate the information and put them up on the > Wiki board. I'm very interested in having a reflection library available, but I can't afford any time to helping with the work, sorry. However, I'd suggest you take into consideration XTI, which is an idea for reflection in C++ from Bjarne Stroustrup (there's several links to this on the web, one of which is http://www.klid.dk/arrangementer/XTI_kbh.pdf, do a Google search for the others). I think his work on it has stagnated, at least from some things I've heard from others, which is unfortunate. But I think his work would be a great place to start from for a Boost reflection framework. > Were talking exclusively about reflection now... I don't want this > muddled with the serialization discussion. They are separate topics. :-) But they *can* be related. I know you can do serialization with out reflection, but I think the serialization capabilities of Java show that reflection can vastly simplify the implementation of a serialization library. (Though with out language support you can't access the private data of an object to make serialization automatic in C++.) William E. Kempf _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost