Re: request for interest/participants: another lua C++ binding

[Oliver Schoenborn <oliver.schoenborn@...>]

Javier Guerra wrote:
> On Friday 07 April 2006 1:48 pm, Matt Campbell wrote:
>   
> > I would suggest adding "LuaInterpreter& L" as the first argument to
> > registered functions, and changing the current global utility functions
> > such as luaReturn to LuaInterpreter methods.  This way, your C++ binding
> > framework would support multiple Lua states in a portable way.
> >     
>
> i think the LuaArgs object could have a reference to the LuaInterpreter 
> object; if you need it, just call an accessor method.
>   
Exactly.
> also, the luaReturn in particular could be a macro (so it can do a full 
> return), but should get a reference either to the LuaInterpreter object or 
> the LuaArgs (and therefore to the LuaInterpreter itself).
>   
There might be other ways that would avoid macros. E.g. having the 
return value in the function args:

   void func(const LuaArgs& args, LuaReturn& ret)
   {
       ...
   }

Both could have references to the LuaInterpreter object. You could even 
overload for the cases where you know there are no return values ever, 
allowing you to write

   void func(const LuaArgs& args)
   {
       ...
   }

for a function that returns nothing to the lua interpreter.

Thanks for your input Javier. Cheers,
Oliver