Re: syntax suggestion

Daniel Wallin wrote:

> 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(..)
>        ;

I think it's possible to implement []-style but I'm not sure how much time
it would take to compile.

> Although it looks kind of cool, 'public_' is completely redundant since
> we are only interested in accessible bases anyway.
Not sure about this. We may need access to protected C++ bases from non-C++
class (I don't know how to implement it elegantly, though).

> 
> 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?
> 

-- 
Alexander Nasonov
Independent Developer and Consultant




-------------------------------------------------------
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