From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2002-08-04T08:49:02+09:00
Subject: Re: embed or swig?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Massimiliano Mirra" <list@NOSPAMchromatic-harp.com.web-hosting.com>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: embed or swig?


> On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 07:56:21AM +0900, Phil Tomson wrote:
> > We started off wanting to do unit testing of our C++ classes so I tried
> > out Swig1.3.13 to wrap our classes.  Let's say you have three classes,
> > we'll call them Line, Polygon and Point and let's say you want to have
> > them live in a namespace called Geo.  You would define an interface file
> > as an input to swig that would looks something like:
> >
> > %module Geo
> > %{
> > #include "Line.h";
> > #include "Polygon.h";
> > #include "Point.h";
> > %}
> > %include "Line.h";
> > %include "Polygon.h";
> > %include "Point.h";
> >
> > //end of Geo.i (probably not completely right, I'm doing from
> > memory)
>
> Wait a minute.  Do you really mean that, after you've written your C++
> classes, you just feed nine lines to Swig and after some crunching you
> have them available in Ruby?  Or are you just simplifying?

Well, from what I see on the SWIG site, it appears
he's not oversimplifying.

Potentially very exciting, eh?

Hal