On Friday, 25 October 2013 at 13:10:05 UTC, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
These are some of the more trivial ones, but I'd like to see
how other people go about making bindings. Do you keep as close
to C as possible? Or do you "add value" by using more D style
constructs?
L.
I also think keeping the C bindings as faithful as possible is
the best, correct even, approach. By keeping the C bindings
faithful, one can defer to the existing documentation of the C
library, and user code can be ported from C trivially.
In a good wrapper, the C bindings are present only because the
second layer depends on them and for compatibility purposes,
while the second layer - the idiomatic D interface - should cover
all use cases. I've found that with D's expressive modelling
power and metaprogramming capabilities, the second layer does not
need to compromise on performance or functionality while
providing a safer, more intuitive and more convenient interface.
