Re: syntax suggestion

Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> I'd like to see inheritance more natural in langbinding. What do you think
> if inheritance relationships could be exposed like this:
> 
> class_<C>("C")
>     , public_<A>
>     , public_<B>
> [
>     // ...
> ];

The [] syntax still won't work (IMO) for declaring classes. So you'd end
up with something like:

     class_<C>("C")
         .public_<A>()
         .public_<B>()
       .def(..)
       .def(..)
       ;

Although it looks kind of cool, 'public_' is completely redundant since
we are only interested in accessible bases anyway.

When in doubt I tend to go for the less verbose and less complicated
alternative, so I guess I like the original version is better:

     class_<C, bases<A, B> >("C")
       .def(..)
       .def(..)
       ;

Here are some other possibilities:

     // Cool, but not very portable
     class_<C(A, B)>("C")
       .def(..)
       .def(..)
       ;

     // Just add more parameters to class_<>, complicates
     // the metaprogramming
     class_<C, A, B)>("C")
       .def(..)
       .def(..)
       ;

I'm not sure if either one has any significant benefits from the
original though.

I think we need more opinions, anyone?

-- 
Daniel Wallin


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click