Am 29.01.2012, 21:48 Uhr, schrieb Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin....@gmail.com>:

D has complete (IMHO) compiler support for calling C functions (using extern(C)). But there is a lack of library support.

Readers from this NG probably know this, but... Microsoft .NET Framework has such support. Look briefly at source example in:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/s97shtze.aspx

And at System.IO.Directory.GetCurrentDirectory source:
http://typedescriptor.net/name/members/5540086E017CD13896E80A0CAEA6E517-System.IO.Directory.GetCurrentDirectory%28%29
where Win32Native.GetCurrentDirectory is defined as:
---
[DllImport("kernel32.dll", CharSet=CharSet.Auto, SetLastError=true)]
internal static extern int GetCurrentDirectory(int nBufferLength, StringBuilder lpBuffer);
---

Looks good? But it's not. It tries to provide both low level support (it's needed to just call C function, like D extern(C), but do everything at runtime (yes, in .NET Framework even Regex can be compiled at runtime from a string)) and high level support (it converts UTF-16 to ANSI in the given MSDN example). As a result it even doesn't allow you to specify a (scalar) parameter as a length of another (array) parameter or throw on native function failure.



What can be done in that direction in D? The whole my point is expressed in my small cwrap library:
http://deoma-cmd.ru/d/docs/src/cwrap.html

"Examples" is the most informative section of the documentation. Other examples can be found in (original functions, all in one file):
https://bitbucket.org/denis_sh/cwrap/src/tip/examples/c.d
and generated wrappers:
https://bitbucket.org/denis_sh/cwrap/src/tip/out

Library state: almost every internal function is unittested, generates compilable code which looks right but not unittested yet. NOTE: You need head dmd to CTFE it or you can just change `enum data` to `auto data` in examples/c.d, this will also reduce compilation time more than x10.

Once original function is properly described in IDL, such library gives the fallowing advantages: * [memory-corruption-safe] User works with arrays, not separate pointers and lengths. * [memory-leak-safe] Original function allocated memory will be freed on any failure (NOTE: see "Original function restrictions" in documentation).
* [fail-safe] An exception will be thrown if original function fails.
* [usability] Much easier to work with arrays/preferred string types (it converts UTF-8/16/32 back and forth, see docs).
* [speed] No unnecessary GC (or other) allocations/copying/reading.
* [garbage-free] Look at, e.g. std.file - it leaves lots of garbage because of calling native platform functions. Generated wrappers don't even allocate GC memory (except for output parameters).

Looks like this functionality is usable for auto-generated bindings, at least a useful GtkD still leaks memory almost everywhere because it never frees (OK, not sure, I just haven't seen) allocated memory marked by "free with g_free".

So should such stuff be ever included in Phobos? IMHO yes because it's a general stuff. But if not, can generated wrappers only be included and used to improve current situation "a system language with a library which leaves garbage"?

By the way, std.file.getcwd and std.windows.charset.toMBSz are examples of hand-written wrappers (the first is mine and strictly speaking forced me to do this lib).

P.S.
Not sure if this library usable at all because I'm as sure in its usability as in tabs indention superiority over spaces indention. )
So if it's not (usable), tell me without scruple.


Thanks for reading!

This idea came to me the other day when working with Windows and Posix API. Out of the enhancements you describe I find most useful:
- string / array conversion
- memory management
- errno / return value to exception (already implemented as a function in exception.d) The only reason not to use your wrappers, is if they don't expose all features of the original or if you don't need D types because you pass the result of function A to function B directly. This could happen with some char* returning functions where you don't want to slow down your application by converting forth and back from Windows charset to UTF-8. It is definitely something for the "modern convenience" bullet point.

Reply via email to