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

List:       kde-bindings
Subject:    Re: [Kde-bindings] Replacing kalyptus
From:       "Mauro Iazzi" <mauro.iazzi () gmail ! com>
Date:       2007-10-03 17:07:06
Message-ID: bb4b23320710031007p73ec7a24j6a4b744c1c02e009 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

To be honest, gccxml has problems too. In fact it cannot output
templates at all.

However, it sees each instantiation as a single class and I can easily
bind QStringLists in lqt. I don't know what the moc does in this
regard.

What I cannot do is to instatiate templates from Lua itself but I
don't have a clear picture of what that could be like either...

Another thing gccxml has problems with is RTTI (the use of typeid
crashes it). And I never managed to make it compile some things in
boost... I think that one can live with at the beginning.

mauro


On 03/10/2007, Paolo Capriotti <p.capriotti@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2007 18:47:58 Arno Rehn wrote:
> > > I don't think the moc parser is good enough, and we should use one of
> > > Roberto Raggi's full blown C++ parsers like the KDevelop one, or another
> > > one that the QtJambi bindings use.
> >
> > Why a full blown parser? The only thing we need is something that gathers
> > all the namespaces, classes and methods with return type and parameter
> > types (and if it's a signal/slot). I think moc provides all that stuff.
>
> You would probably have troubles with template classes. AFAIK, moc doesn't
> handle templates, but bindings do need them.
>
> Paolo Capriotti
> _______________________________________________
> Kde-bindings mailing list
> Kde-bindings@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
>
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]