[C++-sig] Re: Interest in luabind

David Abrahams dave at boost-consulting.com
Fri Jul 4 04:55:43 CEST 2003

Rene Rivera <grafik666 at redshift-software.com> writes:

> [2003-07-04] Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>Nicodemus <nicodemus at globalite.com.br> wrote:
>>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>> Script has "limiting" connotations in my mind. After all
>>>> what happens when we add bindings for other
>>>> non-scripting languages like: Lisp/CLOS, Smalltalk,
>>>> Haskell, etc. And for non-language related bindings like
>>>> CORBA, COM, SOAP, XMLRPC, etc. 
>>>> Boost.Language is a thought, but too broad. Boost.Bind
>>>> is taken. ;-) Boost.Interface might work. Boost.Objects
>>>> perhaps? Or Boost.ObjectBind? 
>>> Perhaps Boost.Export? After all, it is all about
>>> exporting C++ code to other languages... just a thought.
>>> 8) 
>>Boost.Export is a good name.
> Yes, good suggestion indeed :-)

Too general, IMO, as are Boost.Interface, Boost.Objects, and
Boost.ObjectBind.  Also almost all of the code will be specific to
dynamic languages, so I don't see how Haskell can figure into this.
Your other points are well taken.  

Another too-general name which I like better than others so far:

OTOH, I think this is a bicycle shed question.  Notice how many
responses we got all of a sudden in this thread? <wink>.  Anyway, this
is just a library for library writers and I'm content to call it "the
common core" until we really need a name.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

More information about the Cplusplus-sig mailing list