On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 01:00 +1200, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: > […] > You don't need to create a complete binding for something to use a > subset of it.
True, but all too often you find there are so many interdependencies of names, you end up binding most of the API. I tried fiddling with Fontconfig using Python which has no binding and was able to hack up just enough using CFFI to get things working. So I think in this case a subset for the application is feasible – as opposed to creating a complete binding. > Writing up a Derelict style binding is easy enough since e.g. > SharedLib > struct handles most of the work (from util package). > > https://github.com/DerelictOrg/DerelictUtil/blob/master/source/derelict/util/sharedlib.d#L118 I am not convinced this is a good approach since you do not get the signatures at compile time. The advantage of a binding, or subset of a binding is that you get full compiler support. -- Russel. =========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
