On 6 January 2011 16:07, Tim Mensch
<tim-lua-l@bitgems.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2011 2:36 AM, Jose Luis Hidalgo wrote:
> You're right with the syntax, sorry, that's what I meant. And about
> SLB's missing features I would really appreciate an email telling me
> so, that's the only way I can improve SLB for others apart from me.
I didn't get past the lack of member variable bindings, and the lack of
documentation, when I did my review.
I also need shared_ptr<> to be handled cleanly; I didn't investigate far
enough to find out whether this was true of SLB. I also mentioned above
the need to be able to add new values to an object, and have them
persist across various shared_ptr<> instances of the object.
Otherwise, SLB looked like it probably had the features I needed, though
I didn't do a benchmark to see how big it made things; I also want the
binding to be pretty light.
Tim
Tim do you still have the code with the generated bindings that you used for your post[1]? If you did, I wonder if you could possibly zip them and send them to me as it would be nice to have another benchmark to compare.
