g-wrap to produce alternative output?

[Tripp Lilley]

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).

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?

Thanks!

(Note: I've cc'ed this directly to rlb because mailman doesn't appreciate
the fact that I send from one address and receive at another, and I'm too
danged impatient to await moderator approval :) )

-- 
   Tripp Lilley  *  http://stargate.eheart.sg505.net/~tlilley/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "The human soul is the greatest anti-piracy measure in the known
    world, but no major company will use it."

   <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/07/19/007240&cid=94>