From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-10 23:30:35
David Abrahams wrote:
> "George van den Driessche" <grebe_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Once you've made that split, then you can add:
>>(c) Expose the types to Lua using the objects created by (a).
>>(d) Expose the types to <language-of-your-choice> using the objects created
>>(e) Serialise the types, using results of (a).
> This I have serious doubts about. What you'd expose for Python/Lua
> binding would be an object's public interface: its abstraction. In
> order to do serialization in that way, you'd likely have to expose an
> object's guts: its implementation details.
I think the assumption George is going under is that the public
interface provides enough information to reconstruct the objects.
Although that is not required it is a common way to design classes that
are going to be serialized. So if you accept that axiom it's possible to
serialize from a reflection of a public interface.
>>(f) Bind types to GUI objects, using results of (a).
> What does it mean to bind a type to a GUI object?
This is something I somewhat do in parts of the GUI code I have.
Basically it's being able to tie a variable (class member, global, etc)
to be displayed and manipulated "directly" by a GUI widget. For example
attaching an enum to a combo-box, or a string to a text-box. Doing
something that maps from the type to the widget automatically given the
reflection info of the type is not an easy task as there's more to a
variable than just the type which one ends up adding when creating the
widget bindings, or at least I did.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk