Prefix-out sounds like a really good way to handle it. I had no idea
that was a possibility!
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017, at 05:33 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> Using prefix-out it is easy to provide the end user with both options.
> One module exports the bindings without the library name prefix.
>
Using prefix-out it is easy to provide the end user with both options.
One module exports the bindings without the library name prefix.
The other simply imports and reexports all bindings using prefix-out.
/Jens Axel
2017-01-08 23:18 GMT+01:00 Hendrik Boom :
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:43:09PM
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:43:09PM -0800, Lehi Toskin wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:29:49 AM UTC-8, Royall Spence wrote:
> > I'm making some bindings for a C library. In the original library, the
> > functions are named as "LIBNAME_do_stuff". Should I keep those the same in
> > the FFI
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:29:49 AM UTC-8, Royall Spence wrote:
> I'm making some bindings for a C library. In the original library, the
> functions are named as "LIBNAME_do_stuff". Should I keep those the same in
> the FFI binding or define them as "libname-do-stuff"? Is there a convention
I'm making some bindings for a C library. In the original library, the
functions are named as "LIBNAME_do_stuff". Should I keep those the same in the
FFI binding or define them as "libname-do-stuff"? Is there a convention for
these things?
--
You received this message because you are subscribe
5 matches
Mail list logo
