On 01-05-2012 18:56, so wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:46:32 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 01-05-2012 18:15, so wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 15:56:32 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
What are you talking about? The link you posted clearly shows that
LuaJIT has a C parser built in. It has everything to do with syntax
(note that FFI is not anything spectacular or innovative; see libffi,
Mono, Lisp, ...). And no, D does not "have all the structures". If it
did, we wouldn't be redefining them in D bindings.
What am "i" talking about? How hard to understand these two things?
Very hard! You're not making it clear what it is you want!
Do you want something like LuaJIT's FFI so you can just drop a C
header in and get a binding or what? You really need to make this
clear. I'm not even sure what we're discussing at this point.
Oh! Be prepared...
import capi; // and you are done.
OK, I understand.
Yes... I wrote the libffi-d binding. You might want to have a look at
your local ffi.h and ffitarget.h to see why the preprocessor is a
serious problem in automated binding generation. As another example,
look at gc.h from libgc.
No, not really. See above. It may be that simple for the OpenGL
headers, but frankly, OpenGL is an example of a reasonably designed
library, something that can't be said for 98% of all C libraries.
As you said lets be realistic if we can support things like OpenGL/CL
with tons of typedefs, enums, defines, function declerations (which you
said seem to agree that easy). We could have 98% of mature C libraries.
I don't agree with you on that 98% of mature libraries designed worse
than those. Because since they target different languages they tend to
have clean interfaces.
zlib.h, iconv.h, curses.h, arpa/inet.h, ev.h, expat.h, setjmp.h,
ucontext.h, unwind.h ...
Just to name a few headers with subtle but problematic preprocessor usage.
How do you propose that we magically figure out what preprocessor
definitions were given to the C compiler when the libraries were
compiled? Not to mention what preprocessor definitions the compiler
itself defines? And what about compiler extensions?
--
- Alex
