[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libredwg] LibreDWG architectural changes

From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: [libredwg] LibreDWG architectural changes
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:30:04 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

() gagan <address@hidden>
() Mon, 8 Dec 2014 20:50:53 +0530

   Looking over python support, I think we should deprecate the
   old swig link and find some better way for binding to python.
   The new API also needs python bindings too.

I'm ambivalent about SWIG (and Python as well, to be honest).
Do you already know of a better way for Python bindings, or is
"find some better way" open to a possible nil result?

   Also thinking to totally remove the write support. What say ?

Why?  If LibreDWG doesn't have write support, where is the
write support going to come from?

   Further I want to ask is it necessary to remaim in C?
   Can't we move towards C++?  IIRC the GNU coding standards
   have changed and its not necassary to use C anymore (please
   correct me if wrong).

Indeed, it is not necessary to remain in C, but do we really
want to take on the complexities and latent gotchas of C++?

Relatedly, at some point it would be nice to provide Guile
(Scheme) bindings, and while i'm confident that Guile/C is a
proven combination, i'm not sure about Guile/C++.

Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]