[Python-Dev] Parrot -- should life imitate satire? (original) (raw)

Owen Taylor otaylor@redhat.com
13 Aug 2001 00:46:27 -0400

Sterling Hughes <sterling@designmultimedia.com> writes:

> Etc. If you follow these rules, you get a a library where writing > bindings for it is a brain-dead task. But still task. A library like > GObject that standardizes memory management, and object-oriented > structures helps quite a bit, but I'm certainly of the opinion that > the eventual goal has to be > > - write a library using tools that produce an introspectable > descriptions of its interfaces. > > - Language bindings are automatic and can be done without > a compilation step.

Not quite sure I understand you here -- write a library using tools that produce an introspectable descriptions of its interface??? context? Are you talking about a library that is written so that it can be analyzed by a program and then extension bindings for the individual language can be created?

Sorry for the vagueness, just trying to be very generic.

There are multiple ways of "automatically" getting information about the interfaces library/module, some being:

Once you have that information, you can:

In that space of possiiblities, I tend to favor avoiding header parsing, and dynamic bindings rather than static bindings.

Regards, Owen