3 ms·

CLIF does recognize explicit template instatiations, and can instantiate a limited set itself. There is no pain like keeping the two files in sync because clif

CLIF does recognize explicit template instatiations, and can instantiate a limited set itself. There is no pain like keeping the two files in sync because clif only allows a very small amount of C++ in its sources--basically just type names. And cliff takes care to error out when the wrapper description doesn't match the C++. "When in doubt, refuse the temptation to guess." Our internal clients really like it. Someone described it the other day as "magic".

ithkuil 9y ago
"magic" is an overloaded term. In can mean something so beautifully advanced that you cannot distinguish it from advanced tech and you really don't care how it works, since it works so flawlessly you couldn't bother looking behind the scenes. I.e. a praise. Or it can mean something that uses some arcane unearthly constructs and at the moment you need to look behind the scenes you find yourself utterly lost. I.e. a critique.
- mountain_lion 9y ago
  I was in the room when this person said it (and it was in the context of CLIF's Google-wide adoption), so I think it's reasonable that my interpretation that this was a positive statement is reasonable. At least if you weren't in the room as well. I'm assuming you weren't?
- gpshead 9y ago
  No goats need to be sacrificed in order for CLIF to do the right thing.
gumby 9y ago
Why do you need a handwritten clif file?
- gumby 9y ago
  Why would this be down voted? It's a legit question, and a followup in the comment chain. I understand why SWIG needs a .i file, as it doesn't understand much about the code. But when you control the compiler you can 1> as in the example I gave, look at actual explicit instantiation instead of doing the synthetic thing SWIG does, as well as make other, smarter decisions and 2> use #pragmas or attributes to direct translation at the point of use. And the author even said himself that "code two files is a pain." Thus my question remains: why the need for a .clif file?
  - mish33 9y ago
    A C++ header file is full of garbage^W implementation details and not-C++ users want a stable API definition - that's what .clif file is about. It's an interface declaration for a native user.
  - mountain_lion 9y ago
    #pragmas are not portable, and have various problems with compatibility. Structured comments could work, but because the C++ compiler doesn't parse them, you essentially have a file-with-a-file, and 80% of the problems you encounter with the dual-file system. You also have the problem of the API's client trying to understand what the API looks like. We don't want to make them read C++ code in any way, and a pyclif file looks a lot like python. Finally, CLIF is substantially more terse than SWIG--on the order of 1/10th the number of lines. This makes it less of a big deal to have a separate file.

ithkuil 9y ago

"magic" is an overloaded term. In can mean something so beautifully advanced that you cannot distinguish it from advanced tech and you really don't care how it works, since it works so flawlessly you couldn't bother looking behind the scenes. I.e. a praise. Or it can mean something that uses some arcane unearthly constructs and at the moment you need to look behind the scenes you find yourself utterly lost. I.e. a critique.

mountain_lion 9y ago
I was in the room when this person said it (and it was in the context of CLIF's Google-wide adoption), so I think it's reasonable that my interpretation that this was a positive statement is reasonable. At least if you weren't in the room as well. I'm assuming you weren't?
gpshead 9y ago
No goats need to be sacrificed in order for CLIF to do the right thing.

gumby 9y ago

Why do you need a handwritten clif file?

gumby 9y ago
Why would this be down voted? It's a legit question, and a followup in the comment chain. I understand why SWIG needs a .i file, as it doesn't understand much about the code. But when you control the compiler you can 1> as in the example I gave, look at actual explicit instantiation instead of doing the synthetic thing SWIG does, as well as make other, smarter decisions and 2> use #pragmas or attributes to direct translation at the point of use. And the author even said himself that "code two files is a pain." Thus my question remains: why the need for a .clif file?
- mish33 9y ago
  A C++ header file is full of garbage^W implementation details and not-C++ users want a stable API definition - that's what .clif file is about. It's an interface declaration for a native user.
- mountain_lion 9y ago
  #pragmas are not portable, and have various problems with compatibility. Structured comments could work, but because the C++ compiler doesn't parse them, you essentially have a file-with-a-file, and 80% of the problems you encounter with the dual-file system. You also have the problem of the API's client trying to understand what the API looks like. We don't want to make them read C++ code in any way, and a pyclif file looks a lot like python. Finally, CLIF is substantially more terse than SWIG--on the order of 1/10th the number of lines. This makes it less of a big deal to have a separate file.