Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 22 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote:
|
| > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > Do you know if anyone has mentioned xtl on the boost list? Perhaps
| > that should be done?
| >
| > Of course to include the xtl in boost the lisence has to change.
|
| Asger sent an email to the XTL list advocating XTL's submission to Boost.
| It was the first email on the list for about 2 months or more. And I
| still haven't seen a reply.
Ok, same time he pushed (slighly) for sigc in boost?
| requirements of XTL (rtti is still necessary though I think). The CUJ
| article has what could be described as an "XTL for C++ to C++" in that the
| data isn't actually externalised but wrapped up with type info and stored
| in a fancy variant_t class -- basically a glorified void*.
I haven t been able to get hold of CUJ for october...
| XTL could be the backbone for providing CORBA access to our internals (the
| data exchange being handled by XTL). Any half decent scripting language
| should also have XDR or GIOP libraries written for it (like Perl and
| Python do)
For python we should rather look at the py_cpp code in boost.
| so XTL can provide the scripting languages with access to
| internal data in a format that looks native to them -- avoiding all that
| silly custom string handling.
You seem to forget that we want access to internal/user visible data
structures to be handled through lyxfunc. (and passing structs to
lyxfunc (in whatever form) is not nice).
Lgb
