automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-01-26 13:24, Trass3r wrote:
>>> Are the Clang C bindings complete? I imagine they don't get that much
>>> attention.
>>
>> It depends on what complete means. If you mean that you can do all the
>> things you can do with the C++ API, then no. If you mean it's complete
>> enough to implement this project, then I don't know. I think at least
>> parts of the C bindings are added when someone needs it.
>
> Well I know from the llvm bindings that they aren't complete and it's
> not hard to guess they don't pay that much attention to them.

I think they pay quite much attention to the bindings. I mean Apple uses 
it in Xcode  (at least I think it's the C bindings and not the C++ code) 
and the C bindings are much more API stable compared to the C++.

> Is it easy to use them? From what I've seen the llvm bindings don't
> quite follow the naming scheme of the C++ counterpart which makes it
> harder to find the appropriate functions.

It seems fairly straightforward, I've just started to use the bindings.
I'm not sure how the LLVM bindings work but these bindings for Clang are 
more of a C library built on top of the C++ code than actual bindings. 
You don't even link with the same library. Instead of linking to 
libclangSema, libclangAST and so on you just link to libclang.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg