[fetter-devel] Couple of probably silly questions

[Rayiner Hashem]

> Crud.  I'm a bit confused - MOC is a pre-processor which generates
> valid C++ code to compile from QT libraries.

Yes.

>  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?

Yep.

>  I take it MOC must be used on any
> user code written using QT bindings as well?

Yes, I presume it translates Qt-specific constructs into the low-level
form expected at the library level.

>  So we would need a QT
> Lisp bindings -> Vzn generated post MOC QT bindings translator, which
> means duplicating the MOC logic in Lisp?

Kinda. What libraries like PyQt do is present a native-language
version of the low-level interface that results when MOC is run on the
Qt header files. The trick would be to write something similar for
Lisp.

> 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.

QT4 is supposedly easier to target than QT3, because it has some
specific metacall facillities. However, its mainly intended for
dynamic languages that can introspect the library at runtime. It seems
like of a waste on Lisp, which is compiled and could bind statically
to the library just like C++.

>
> 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...)

Vzn is BSD licensed.

> 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
>