I like the sound of CxxWrap.jl. I was reluctant to use Cxx, to avoid giving
the impression there is a dependency on Cxx.jl, but in the future I may
actually use Cxx.jl to replace the current ccall usage, so then that is no
longer an objection.
I'll give it a few more days and then proceed with the rename to and
registration of CxxWrap.jl
Cheers,
Bart
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:37:52 PM UTC+1, Morten Piibeleht wrote:
>
> 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?)".
>
>
