[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-bindings
Subject:    Re: [Kde-bindings] A sample of our subset of QtC
From:       Adam Treat <manyoso () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2003-01-11 15:36:33
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 11 January 2003 02:48 pm, Ashley Winters wrote:
> Well, extern "C" only defines the linkage. It's hardly a legal C
> header, which would be a requirement for a real version of QtC. Without
> C headers to go along with the library, it's only half functional.

Well, our glue lib isn't meant as a C binding library.  QtC is still the place 
for that.  We are only going todo a subset like i said and then call Qt 
directly after that.

> Also, it's rather unpleasant to have the possibility of function "ids"
> changing between versions. If you're gonna tack an effectively random
> number on the end of every function, why not go all the way like smoke
> does? f1, f2, ..., f4897.
>
> I'd propose using a standard name-mangling scheme for the arguments.
>
> QApplication(const char **, int)
> QApplication_cCPP_i  (char CONST POINTER POINTER, int)
>
> It would be possible to document a mapping from "mangled" names to
> "easy" names that way. qtc_QApplication() would always call
> QApplication_cCPP_i or something

That is a good idea.  Although it isn't a big deal to us (since all of that is 
hidden and is automatically generated from Qt releases anyway AND we are 
going to have a tight coupling with our glue) it is a good idea for the real 
QtC.  I would suggest using the GCC 3.2 name mangling scheme.  We are 
currently mangling our stuff with nm and cppfilt which allows us to call 
directly into Qt.

Cheers,

Adam
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]