Scripting C++ -- Boost.Python vs CORBA vs ???

[David Abrahams]

"Craig Maloney" <cmaloney at physics.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
news:3C73E1CD.8070100 at physics.ucsb.edu...
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> > "Craig Maloney" <cmaloney at physics.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C7283E4.4050604 at physics.ucsb.edu...
> >
> >
> > One of the design goals for Boost.Python was to avoid the language
support
> > issues that tend to plague systems which attempt to parse C++. Parsing
C++
> > is hard; AFAIK all of the wrapping systems which try to do it break down
in
> > some areas. Boost.Python uses the builtin type inference abilities of
your
> > C++ compiler instead of parsing the C++ code separately.
>
> As I understand it, the SILOON project uses a commercial parser known as
> PDT from uoregon.  Have you, or has anyone else had any experience with
> the SILOON/PDT project?  On the face of it, my guess would be that you
> would be somewhat skeptical of their claims?

I haven't had any experience with it. I just found that site. My skepticism
just dropped by a factor of 8. If they are really using the EDG front-end as
they claim to, then I am sure the parser is excellent. I do have to wonder
who is paying for the FE. The issues of dealing with the semantics of what
they've parsed remain, but these guys at least seem to be doing the parsing
part right.

> As for the CERN Root interpereter (CINT)
> http://root.cern.ch/root/Cint.html -- which I had already heard about
> from my friends in the know in the particle physics community -- I
> would assume that many here also harbor the same skeptecism toward the
> C++ interpereter as they do toward the C++ parsing systems?

Look at the site documentation. They only claim about 85% coverage of C++.