g-wrap to produce alternative output?

[Dave Peticolas]

On 29 Jul 2001 19:01:00 +0000, Tripp Lilley wrote:
> Howdy...
> 
> I want to write Python extensions to GnuCash. Before g-wrap, I suppose I
> would have added Python output to the SWIG wrappers. After g-wrap, well :)
> 
> Anyway, I started poking around with g-wrap a little bit, and it seems
> like it ought to be a tractable problem to generate Python extensions from
> what g-wrap is already given (ie: gnc.gwp), rather than either re-wrap
> gnc directly in Python, or pick the SWIG remains back up.
> 
> The fourth alternative, I suppose, would be to work towards a "canonical"
> representation of the API that could then be coerced into producing inputs
> for g-wrap, SWIG, or what have you. However, this seems an awful lot like
> reinventing SWIG (which, I understand, you dropped because of its poor
> Scheme output).

Swig was dropped because our use of it was broken due to changes in 
the engine API, and nobody was stepping up to keep it up to date.
However, Linas has recently resurrected it and updated it in the
development tree.


> Then, there's a fifth alternative, which motivates me to ask a possibly
> delicate question: why write g-wrap instead of fixing SWIG's Scheme
> generator?

Well, I think it's because swig is released *very* slowly,
and is outside of our direct control. We depend on scheme
too much to wait for swig to catch up, I think.

dave