[fetter-devel] Couple of probably silly questions

[C Y]

--- Rayiner Hashem <rayiner at gmail.com> wrote:

> > a)  If a library on (say) Windows has been compiled with Visual
> > C++, and another with gcc in mingw, will I be able to access the
> > functionality of both binary C++ libraries from Lisp and use both
> > in the same application?
> 
> Yes. Since the ABI details are embedded into the bindings, the ABI is
> per-binding, not per-application.
> 
> > b)  Has anyone yet taken a crack at QT, or will that need the
> > retooled C++ support?
> 
> QT isn't regular C++ code. Its header files, as well as any programs
> that use it, are not regular C++. VZN could bind to the MOC-processed
> headers, but since there is no "MOC for Lisp", Lisp programs couldn't
> use the resulting library comfortably. 

Crud.  I'm a bit confused - MOC is a pre-processor which generates
valid C++ code to compile from QT libraries.  We could presumably
generate bindings based on the QT source code using gcc-xml, but I
gather they would not represent an interface to the level of object the
user would want to use but an interface to the legal C++ interfaces
generated by the MOC pre-processor?  I take it MOC must be used on any
user code written using QT bindings as well?  So we would need a QT
Lisp bindings -> Vzn generated post MOC QT bindings translator, which
means duplicating the MOC logic in Lisp?

> This problem is solvable, as Python has rather good Qt bindings, and
> Vzn would likely make the task easier, but significant extra work 
> will be required.

It looks like this might be a useful discussion, once I figure out what
on earth they're talking about:
http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-bindings/2005-August/001289.html

Python has QT3 bindings, but for QT4 it looks like they are still in
early development stage

Blast. QT4 has been released as GPL for Windows, Mac and Linux with an
apparently native look on all three - why oh why does it have to be the
tough target?  Auugh.

I wonder if Trolltech would be interested in this at all?  CFFI's
license is no problem for commercial use, and I'm assuming Verrazano's
isn't either (I can't find it offhand, but it wouldn't make sense to
exclude commercial use when universality is the goal...) but to deploy
any commerical Lisp app using QT bindings a commercial QT license would
be needed.  Dunno how much potential market there is, but surely QT
lisp bindings wouldn't hurt Trolltech.  In one sense, given robust
bindings QT+Lisp might even present a viable alternative to Java for
cross platform graphical application development.
 
> > c)  Does anybody know what the current status of GCL support?  Is
> > anybody still working on it or is GCL too far out of spec right now
> > to be able to have any chance of handling it?
> 
> GCL could likely run Verrazano, but I think the problem is that it
> can't run C-FFI.

OK.  Hopefully matters will improve with 2.7.0  Thanks!

CY

*Irrelevant note to self - try C-FFI with the zic graphics libraries.


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com