[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The material below is a context diff of a set of functions I've
> added to g-wrap so as to allow the ability to create transactions.
> I'm certain that this is all I'll need, but figured I ought to
> submit the change anyways, as it'll be needed more widely soon
> enough.
This looks pretty good, but why did you create the gnc_ functions,
rather than just naming the bare xacc function? i.e.:
(new-function
'gnc:transaction-destroy
'void "xaccTransDestroy" '((Transaction* t))
"Destroys the transaction in question.")
The only time you need to bother with a wrapper is when the underlying
C function won't play nice with scheme, and given the
cleanup/no-cleanup stuff I added to g-wrap (did I document that
anywhere?) you probably won't often need a wrapper.
> By the way, g-wrap looks Really A Lot Like a Schemed variation on
> CORBA IDL. I have this nagging suspicion that g-wrap ought to
> become part of the encoding to provide a Scheme language mapping for
> ORBit. It is disappointing that we have SWIG, g-wrap, and ILU as
> near "competitors," with ORBit as a "if it did Scheme it would also
> join the list" option.
Perhaps, but the advantage to the current solution is that it's
simple, small, efficient, and one over which we have essentially
complete control. My impression of the CORBA stuff was that it might
fail on any or all of those counts. Not that I'm opposed to CORBA, I
just wanted something soon that didnt' require any more
infrastructure.
In any case, this works for now, and we can pretty easily write some
scheme code to translate gnc.gwp to whatever else we want later if we
decide on something different.
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
----- %< -------------------------------------------- >% ------
The GnuCash / X-Accountant Mailing List
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
put "unsubscribe gnucash-devel [EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the body
