From: Simon Strandgaard <0bz63fz3m1qt3001@...>
Date: 2003-04-18T11:50:20+09:00
Subject: Re: [swig] avoiding the module name

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:10:15 +0000, Lyle Johnson wrote:

> Simon Strandgaard wrote:
> 
> | I'm working on a embedding-tutorial with some skeleton code.
> | If someone wants to extend this code with a new class,
> | then he/she has to write a bunch of code, spread out
> | over many different files.
> |
> | I'm trying to reduce this number of places where you need
> | to make changes :-)
> 
> This sounds a little suspicious ;)

Admitted: it is possible to join some of the files, but then
it all becomes messy and non-intuitive. 

 
> | Is there some way to tell SWIG that it should NOT
> | encapsulate the classes in a %module module ???
> 
> SWIG 1.3.19 definitely doesn't support this. I think I could add such an
> option if it proves useful but I don't want to add this feature just
> because I know how to do it. 

I fully understand.. bloating sux :-)


> The reasons for hiding a module's classes,
> methods and constants in its own namespace are pretty well recognized,
> whether you're talking about Ruby or any other programming language.

Its a cosmetic detail...
Its fairly intuitive for me.  But it adds an extra twist when
I must explain to the tutorial-readers why this is necessary.

Many details => complexity => non-intuitive.


> Can I see the tutorial, or something that might be a little more
> convincing of an argument for adding this?

http://metaeditor.sourceforge.net/embed/index.html
Take a look at the tar.gz file in the [advanced wrapper] section.


--
Simon Strandgaard