Browse thread
[Caml-list] CamlIDL documentation and COM issues
-
Florian Hars
-
Dmitry Bely
-
Florian Hars
- Dmitry Bely
-
Florian Hars
-
Dmitry Bely
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Dmitry Bely <dbely@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] CamlIDL documentation and COM issues |
Florian Hars <hars@bik-gmbh.de> writes:
>> It's easy:
>> typedef [abstract,finalize(FooClose)] void* FooHandle;
>
> Nice, now all I need is a debian package for camlidl 1.04 to get this
> working :-).
> But there are more things I cannot figure out reading the manual:
>
> The library I want to use contains constructs like
>
> typedef struct {
> int numThings;
> int *the1stThings;
> int *the2ndThings;
> /* more stuff */
> } FOOThing;
>
> Can I translate this to
>
> struct FOOThing {
> [length_is(numThings)] int (*the1stThings) [];
> [length_is(numThings)] int (*the2ndThings) [];
> /* more stuff */
> };
>
> Will this work as expected? From a quick look at the machine generated
> C code, the answer seems to be yes, but the manual doesn't say much
> about how camlidl deals with the array/pointer ambiguity in C, except
> that it mentions (*x)[] as an example for the syntax of type
> declarations.
Your declaration is wrong, just look into generated C header
(camlidl -header). Why simply not to use
typedef struct {
int numThings;
[size_is(numThings)] int *the1stThings;
[size_is(numThings)] int *the2ndThings;
/* more stuff */
} FOOThing;
?
> And what is the difference between length_is() and size_is(), except
> that the latter is checked after the former?
See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/midl/mi-laref_1r1h.asp
:-)
> And who has to do the name mangling? FOOThing is no valid type or
> variable name in ocaml. It looks like camlidl just converts the first
> character to lowercase, but can I control this better? I can use
> [mlname="thing"] on struct fields, something like
> int [quote("_ret=FOOOperate(args...)")] operate(args...);
> for functions, but what about structs and typedefs? Wouldn't it be
> usefull to generalize the mlname attribute to all cases where names on
> both sides of the translation might be different?
Maybe. Ask Xavier Leroy if he's like this idea.
Hope to hear from you soon,
Dmitry
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners