Re: abstract unified interface
David Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.langbinding |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes: > I'm thinking we might need to make some decisions on the abstract > unified interface thing since it will surely affect how everything else > works. > > We need some ideas on how policies could be written language > independently. One thing to notice here is that the conversion work will > be done before any of the compile time generated converters get a chance > to do anything. So I'm thinking maybe the callpolicies could get a > chance to modify the function signature before the type_info's are > produced. > > I think many policies could be expressed this way, for instance.. > > void f(const int*, int size); > > Could be transformed to: > > void f(array_with_size<const int, int>); > > Given that the language backend has a converter registered for > typeid(array_with_size<const int, int>), Seems reasonable > which is of course somewhat of an problem. Why? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/