Re: Cool

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Cool
by Richard Dale on Saturday 25/Sep/2004, @11:57

You have some interesting ideas here, but it is all very compiler specific and so a practical binding could never be implemented this way. Also how do override C++ virtual methods in a Pascal class using this sort of technique? To me it looks like it only solves the problem of calling C++ methods from Pascal and not callbacks for virtual methods or slot invocations going the other way.

Related Links

·   Articles on Qt
·   Also by Richard Dale
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Cool
by Andreas Hausladen on Saturday 25/Sep/2004, @14:16

I have a working Pascal binding (http://tinyurl.com/55cd9) with signal/slot support and virtual method overriding.

The "common ABI" could have (as generated by the compiler itself) an additional void** for virtual methods that point to the virtual table entry.

> but it is all very compiler specific and so a practical binding
> could never be implemented this way.

That's why I wrote: "I'm dreaming."

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Cool
by Richard Dale on Sunday 26/Sep/2004, @01:09

Well I looked at the .png.

But then I see you're working on Qt#/Bugtussle, and I've been fishing around looking at those docs - interesting. I hadn't heard of it until Adam Treat mentioned it in his blog a few weeks ago. I hope by KDE 3.4 at least one of the three(!) C# bindings projects succeeds in wrapping the KDE api. There will be a lot more people interested in a C# binding than Pascal I would have thought.

I haven't done anything on my Kimono C# project for a while, because I've been too busy with ruby. And I really ought to spend some time getting the KDE java bindings improved a bit - so I'm not sure if I'll have come up with anything worthwhile by KDE 3.4. I don't think multiple C# bindings implementations are a problem, but it might be a good idea to ensure they are source code compatible if that was possible. Then a C#/KDE app written with one variant would compile and run with the other two..

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Cool
by Andreas Hausladen on Sunday 26/Sep/2004, @04:38

> I hope by KDE 3.4 at least one of the three(!) C# bindings projects succeeds in wrapping
> the KDE api. There will be a lot more people interested in a C# binding than Pascal I
> would have thought.

When Adam is back we start to mix Bugtussle with Binge. Bugtussle is good in reading the doxygen XML files and Binge is good in writing C# bindings.
But at the moment I'm writing a C++Parser in C# to remove doxygen dependencies. Doxygen is a documentation tool and as such it is not really a good base for writing bindings. And the lastest doxygen makes template generation impossible because the xml base class entities lost the template parameters.
QByteArray derives now from QMemArray instead of QMemArray<char>.
And I'm not in the mood to rewrite the APILoader code every time doxygen changes.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"Factories pollute too much, I want something good for the environment." -- Charles Samuels
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.