Re: How close to C do you make your binding?

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014, Coda Highland <chighland@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com> wrote:
> > We have our nanomsg binding that we recently remade. It was very C heavy and
> > now it's the opposite. We're making an "nml.core" that looks *pretty much*
> > exactly like the C API. The higher level binding wraps it in a Lua-esque
> > API.
> >
> > If you have made bindings this way, how far do you take the idea of sticking
> > to the C API in your core layer?
> >
> > Do you strive for perfect adherence to the original C documentation? Do you
> > change things like "-1" or "0" to "false", where appropriate? Do you use
> > multiple returns where their API is using pointers?
> >
> > -Andrew
>
> My goal, when I do such a direct binding, is to make it to where
> there's almost no documentation necessary -- that is, you can use the
> original C docs directly with only minor changes (mostly syntactical).
>
> /s/ Adam

That detail is the question, though. What syntactical allowances do you make for variance? Examples?