I would second Erik, CXX seems to be the standard way of referring to C++
(e.g. in makefiles), and it would be consistent with Cxx.jl.
Also, maybe the shorter "CxxWrap.jl"? Sounds a tiny bit better to me ("wrap
C++ code in Julia") whereas CxxWrapper could be interpreted as "wrapper
around something (C++ toolchain?)".
Just my two cents,
Morten
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 2:17:12 PM UTC+1, Erik Schnetter wrote:
>
> The abbreviation "cpp" often stands for "C pre-processor". If you call
> "cpp" on the command line, you'll get the preprocessor; only c++ or
> cxx might get the C++ compiler.
>
> The name "CxxWrapper" might thus be better.
>
> -erik
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Bart Janssens <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to register the CppWrapper package:
> > https://github.com/barche/CppWrapper
> >
> > At the very least, I'll have to rename the github repo to CppWrapper.jl,
> but
> > while I'm at it I'd like to ask if there are any suggestions for a
> better
> > name? The package is meant to "wrap" a C++ library in a set of Julia
> > functions and types. Unlike Cxx.jl, there is no direct way to call C++
> > functions, but a C++ file has to be written and compiled into a shared
> > library that can then be loaded using CppWrapper.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bart
>
>
>
> --
> Erik Schnetter <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
>
