Forum: Ruby foo.h -> foo.rb

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Cb48ca5059faf7409a5ab3745a964696?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2006-02-01 00:15
(Received via mailing list)
anyone out there written a parser that makes ruby dl bindings for *.h
files?
seems like such a beast would exist.

regards.

-a
912c61d9da47754de7039f4271334a9f?d=identicon&s=25 MenTaLguY (Guest)
on 2006-02-01 02:55
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 08:14 +0900, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> anyone out there written a parser that makes ruby dl bindings for *.h files?
> seems like such a beast would exist.

Well, you'd need more than just a parser, since you'd often have to pick
up on typedefs and other type information.

I wonder whether writing an alternate swig backend or something might
work.

-mental
Cb48ca5059faf7409a5ab3745a964696?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2006-02-01 03:01
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 08:14 +0900, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>> anyone out there written a parser that makes ruby dl bindings for *.h files?
>> seems like such a beast would exist.
>
> Well, you'd need more than just a parser, since you'd often have to pick
> up on typedefs and other type information.
>
> I wonder whether writing an alternate swig backend or something might
> work.

that's about what i was thinking too.  the cool thing about it would be
that
you'd end up with 'portable' ruby extension requiring no compilation...
probably too big for me - i'm waiting for ryan davis to jump on ;-)

-a
58479f76374a3ba3c69b9804163f39f4?d=identicon&s=25 Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2006-02-01 19:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 31, 2006, at 5:59 PM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

>>
>> I wonder whether writing an alternate swig backend or something might
>> work.
>
> that's about what i was thinking too.  the cool thing about it
> would be that
> you'd end up with 'portable' ruby extension requiring no
> compilation...
> probably too big for me - i'm waiting for ryan davis to jump on ;-)

I tried to use DL to wrap libc for MetaRuby but found that it is
lacking necessary features to make it 100% useable (like 64 bit
integers for stat(2)).  Switching to DL2 adds an unfamiliar
dependency whereas RubyInline is a familiar dependency.

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.