Re: Front-end
John Moeller <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.langbinding |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Daniel Wallin wrote: > John Moeller wrote: >> I was wondering about the front-end a little bit, and since it would be >> essentially a DSEL, has any thought been given toward using Proto for >> the Langbinding front-end? > > I don't know which DSEL you're thinking of. The class_<>, def(), etc. It's a DSEL that describes a class. > IIRC we use type erasure > everywhere, in which case proto won't help. Type erasure. That's the term I was looking for, thank you. :) There's only type erasure (AFAICT) at the point where xxx binds. Tuple transformations and other compile-time operations are used internally in langbinding. All I'm saying is that it may be useful. If you don't think so, so be it. Additionally, I've been wondering if type erasure is strictly necessary anyway. A while back, you and Dave had discussed a system where static type information was utilized. It seems that the idea of static converter generators was abandoned in favor of type erasure, but I wasn't able to discern why. That's the point that I was trying to get at in my other post. I wanted to revisit the issue, if possible. > We might have some parts > that doesn't use type erasure, like the policy specification syntax, but > I don't think we'd want to do any tree transformations on that anyway.. Policy specification syntax? Are you referring to something in Boost.Python or in Luabind? -- John Moeller [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/