[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: How close to C do you make your binding?
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:58:47 -0700
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014, Coda Highland <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Andrew Starks <email@example.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
> 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?
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).
That detail is the question, though. What syntactical allowances do you make for variance? Examples?