lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Robert G. Jakabosky
<> wrote:
> On Saturday 26, David Manura wrote:
>>   m.constructor {name='newTrueColor', callstyle='ccall', ret='gdImage
>> *', symbol='gdImageCreate', parameters={ "int", "sx", "int", "sy" }}
>>   m.constructor[[newTrueColor ccall gdImage * gdImageCreate(int sx,
>> int sy)]] -- possibly with shorthand too
>>   if condition then -- the imperative style permits control structures
>>     m.destructor {.....}
>>   end
> I don't see how that first "m.constructor.." line is any easier to read/write.

The second (pure data version) below is not easier to write but is
kind-of more straightforward to interpret, manipulate, and perhaps
debug, so it's just something to thing about:

  constructor "newTrueColor" {
     c_call "gdImage *" "gdImageCreateTrueColor" { "int", "sx", "int", "sy" }
  },  --[A]

  m.constructor {name='newTrueColor', callstyle='ccall', ret='gdImage
*', symbol='gdImageCreate', parameters={ "int", "sx", "int", "sy" }}

> Also for the second one, how would you handle a block of custom C code for
> binding a complex C function that doesn't have a simple parameter types? or
> output parameter? or object ownership transfer?

Such short-hand syntax need not necessarily be usable in all
scenarios.  You may even think of the above [A] as a short-hand for
[B], except that [A] could be shorter.