From: Gennady Bystritsky <gfb@...>
Date: 2005-09-25T04:58:13+09:00
Subject: Re: swiggery

SWIG is especially good for a small task as you can get it done in no  
time to the extent you would spend tons of time doing manually. If  
you care about rubyish API it is also doable, by using SWIG  
directives like '%rename' in your interface description file. And the  
type mapping is just fabulous.

Gennady.

On Sep 24, 2005, at 12:46, Martin DeMello wrote:

> Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> is probably overkill. SWIG is best for large libraries where you're
>> willing to settle for the un-Rubyness of the wrapped API in return  
>> for
>> having the wrappers automatically generated. For two functions, I'd
>>
>
> Thanks for the reply, Steve, and particularly for that bit - I hadn't
> quite caught on to that, and thought it was merely a matter of  
> tweaking the
> ..i file to get rubyish API out of SWIG. I'll go with handbinding this
> time, I think.
>
> martin
>
>