----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk@cci.lbl.gov>
> The most important feature for me is that both the compiled code and
> the interpreted code look nice and are extensible.
> The second most important feature is that all you need is Python
> and C++. There is no third (little) language to learn (as with
> SWIG).
As libraries start to take more advantage of template metaprogramming
techniques, their interface starts to approach a language definition.
How different, really, is the following from being an IDL?
BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE_INIT(back_reference_ext)
{
module("back_reference_ext")
.def("copy_Y", copy_Y,
return_value_policy<copy_const_reference>())
.def("copy_Z", copy_Z,
return_value_policy<copy_const_reference>())
.def("x_instances", &X::count)
.add(
class_<Y>("Y")
.def_init(args<int>())
.def("value", &Y::value)
.def("set", &Y::set)
)
.add(
class_<Z,std::auto_ptr<Z> >("Z")
.def_init(args<int>())
.def("value", &Z::value)
.def("set", &Z::set)
)
;
}
The real advantage to using the C++ compiler as opposed to intermediate
language is that we can be sure it is up to the job of dealing with any
C/C++ language constructs we throw at it.
-Dave
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4