Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:20:13 -0400 From: Antoine Beaupre <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> To: Max Okumoto <okumoto@ucsd.edu> Cc: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org>, freebsd-libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cleanup of HSystem 2nd try (stage 4) Message-ID: <3BABB735-520E-11D6-BCD9-0050E4A0BB3F@anarcat.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <hfy9fm4eez.fsf@multivac.sdsc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Mercredi 17 avril 2002, à 09:56 , Max Okumoto a écrit : > The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> writes: > > [stuff deleted] >> I don't know if anyone ever considered replacing the current tcl >> interface stuff with swig, but it's an interesting idea. I never >> really paid attention to swig before. I think, however, that reducing >> the number of dependencies of libh would help it getting into the base >> system. There's already a big issue about libh using tcl as a >> scripting language because tcl itself is not part of base, and >> everyone seems to hate tcl. :) > > I don't have many problems with tcl. Quoting can become a pain > but otherwise its just another programming language. That's what I think too. > Swig (http://www.swig.org/) is a software development tool > that connects programs written in C, C++, and Objective-C > with a variety of high-level programming languages. (Java, > Perl, Tcl/Tk, etc) Yeah, I read their propaganda too. The advantage of swig over our current scheme is that it kind of removes the binding of libh with tcl. It allows generation of other interfaces. But that can also be a problem in itself: tcl has the safe interpreter mode for installing packages which is mostly why it was chosen (along with easy C integration). But then again, if the packages are written in TCL, they won't be interpreted as perl, won't they? :) The disadvantage of swig over our current scheme is that it's another dependency, and we don't have control over the API. > After I have clean HSystem up. I might consider replacing it with > swig. But first I have to understand it first. :-) Yeah. And you'll have to face the flamewar. But I think I'd be happy to see a flamewar on libh@. It'd warm up the project. ;) >> Did you mention you have a non-perl parser that replace >> find_classes_descriptions.pl? That would sure be interesting. Again, >> the more we reduce dependencies, the more libh will get >> acceptance. But perl isn't really considered as excessive dependency >> since it's in the base system. > [stuff deleted] > > Yea, the parser would be in HSystem. So we could get ride of a few > steps in the build process. Basically build_systems_*.cc and > tcl_interface_gen_* would go away. Whoa, that would be good. Really good. It's really bad to have generated cc files in the compile directories: they escape documentation and impede understanding of the system. > *.cd.cc -> build_systems_*.cc -> tcl_interface_gen_* -> > LibTclInterface_*.cc > would become > > *.cd.cc -> LibTclInterface_*.cc I don't see anything wrong with this, if it works. I was wondering why the heck we'd parse the .cd.cc files with a perl script to generate C++ code when the .cd.cc file is C++ code in itself. > Max Okumoto , my hero. ;) A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BABB735-520E-11D6-BCD9-0050E4A0BB3F>