On Thursday 14 July 2005 4:51 am, Richard Dale wrote:
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 09:12, Marcus wrote:
> > Yes, I'm using gccxml for my bindings and to build a "database" of the
> > API. I do not know where or when Roberto Raggi posted the original
> > message. I only see the partial message in stratified quotes from Richard
> > here.
>
> Yes, I cc'd my comments about a suggestion for using the gccxml translation
> unit dump as some sort of parser for KDevelop, because the discussion on
> kdevelop-devel sounded very similar to ones we've had on this list.
>
> There seem to be pros and cons of using a translation unit dump as opposed
> to parsing the headers. Then whether xml/xpath should be used for runtime
> introspection or just for generating the bindings in the first place and
> doing runtime introspection based on either extending the moc, or having
> something similar to a more complete moc like Smoke v1.

I guess I'm just more interested in Qt than KDE bindings. C#'s runtime 
provides so much of the infrastructure automatically, where it has to be 
hacked onto C++ to achieve the same effect. 
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings