Re: SLB vs LuaBind

[starwing <weasley.wx@...>]

Hi Jose,

thank you to reply :-)

2010/12/27 Jose Luis Hidalgo <joseluis.hidalgo@gmail.com>:
> Hi starwing,
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 7:23 PM, starwing <weasley.wx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does SLB support function overload? it's a useful feature.
>>
>
> Mmm... sorry, but no. The problem is lua type marshaling with C++
> types, there are many ways a type can be "converted" from lua to a C++
> function/method signature. Overloading could be possible for different
> number of arguments, though, but no for different signatures with the
> same number of arguments, and I didn't want to support partial
> overloading.

Maybe we can make a typemap table to handle the type conversion
between lua and C++.


>
> BTW, the search for the proper method to call will add a significant
> overhead, SLB is meant to be as faster as possible, near to a
> hand-coded wrapper. What I usually do with overloading is register
> each function with a different name in lua, which is not as handy as
> overload support, but it works.
>

No, It will every fast, In a typical implement, we can store C
functions into a hash table, the key is the type-signature. so to find
the right function, we just lookup a hash table, and the global
variable lookup in Lua is just lookup a hash table. so it can not slow
than reference a global variable in Lua.

and, If we want, just use a different function in SLB to register
overloaded function, most function needn't lookup hash table, but if
we need, we can use it. is it better than no overload support?


> Cheers,
>   JL.
>
> PS: I'm working on registering accessors to instances' attributes,
> but, I'm not sure about how use it from lua properly, do you have any
> insights?
>
> --
>   Jose L. Hidalgo Valiño (PpluX)
>   ---- http://www.pplux.com ----
>
>