[Kde-bindings] Qt bindings for Lua: status update

Mauro Iazzi mauro.iazzi at gmail.com
Fri Jun 27 11:16:52 UTC 2008


2008/6/27 Ashley Winters <jahqueel at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Sun, 6/22/08, Mauro Iazzi <mauro.iazzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> All these features make the binding quite usable. The
>> latest snapshot
>> can be downloaded from
>> http://repo.or.cz/w/lqt.git
>> Simple build instructions are included.
>
> I concur. The kdevelop parser you're using is very effective, and your xml is quite usable. I tinkered with creating a stylesheet to convert your format to mine (from http://jahqueel.blogspot.com/2005/06/bindings-xpath-is-my-friend.html) rather than actually alter the cpptoxml code, and it was quite smooth. My old header generating xslt sheet from that post worked perfectly on it. Someone could theoretically replace kalpytus' Smoke generator with your cpptoxml by transforming your current xml using xslt (slowly) or something more convenient. Very nice, indeed.
>
> I'll go back into my hole, now...

not so fast, please! :)

I am no XML expert (I think it is clear...) and as such I do not fully
understand the concept behind your idea. But I see that example of XML
in your post and go wow, here's why:

I only dumped almost literally the inner structure produced by the C++
parser into XML. I thought it was better to split the work in little
steps which generate human readable files (to the extent that XML is
readable).

This left me with some rough edges like distinguishing destructors
from the '~' in the name and constructors because their name attribute
is equal to the member_of_class attribute (yes, that is why it is
there... it was a very bad thing to do, but the simplest).

I have done this work in the second step, which is the Lua code and
directly generates the cpp files. Which means that it is not reusable
if someone does not know or like Lua, and quite error prone.

It sounded to me like you were able to transform my "dumb" XML in a
sane one like the one from that post, using standard technologies,
which would be so much useful for mantainability, reducing the
complexity of the single steps, and to base other bindings on it in
the future.

Did I get it right? May I see this in action? I would be very interested.

In any case, thank you for you interest,

mauro


>
> - Ashley Winters
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kde-bindings mailing list
> Kde-bindings at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
>



More information about the Kde-bindings mailing list