Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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, =E0 09:56 , Max Okumoto a =E9crit :

> 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=20=

the binding of libh with tcl. It allows generation of other interfaces.=20=

But that can also be a problem in itself: tcl has the safe interpreter=20=

mode for installing packages which is mostly why it was chosen (along=20
with easy C integration). But then again, if the packages are written in=20=

TCL, they won't be interpreted as perl, won't they? :)

The disadvantage of swig over our current scheme is that it's another=20
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=20=

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=20=

cc files in the compile directories: they escape documentation and=20
impede understanding of the system.

> *.cd.cc -> build_systems_*.cc -> tcl_interface_gen_* ->=20
> LibTclInterface_*.cc
> would become
>
> *.cd.cc -> LibTclInterface_*.cc

I don't see anything wrong with this, if it works. I was wondering why=20=

the heck we'd parse the .cd.cc files with a perl script to generate C++=20=

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>