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

[David Abrahams]

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

> [2003-07-01] Daniel Wallin wrote:
>
>>At 00:34 2003-06-29, you wrote:
>>>It sounds like we're converging quite rapidly.  What other
>>>issues do we need to deal with?
>>
>>I don't know. I'm sure more issues will pop up later on though. :)
>>How do we proceed from here?
>
> Even though I followed most of this conversation... I'd personally
> like to see a summary of decisions.

I think that would be great.  Volunteers?

> After that finding out what I and others can help with; deciding
> where to put the work; what to name / where to put the common code;
> do we want to move the dev discussion to a dedicated list; etc.
>
> Some possible answers to those:
>
> I imagine doing some of this in the boost-sandbox project is
> best. 

I'm not sure; I want to refactor parts of Boost.Python anyway.  Given
that we have a pile of tests, etc., I think it would be better to do
this evolution in the main CVS.  On a branch, if nothing else.

> Question is do we do all the dev work there or do we keep the
> LuaBind part where it is? I can contact Jeremy about adding Daniel
> and Arvid to it, so that Dave can continue enjoying his vacation ;-)

I think it's best to have everything in one repository so we can be
aggressive about sharing architecture and technology.

> As for the name of the common code, I think there was one previous
> suggestion which I can't remember. But my suggestion is
> Boost.Tie. It's on par with Boost.Bind, but tie is one of the terms
> used for binding at runtime/dynamically. I would assume Boost.Lua
> would be the conterpart to Boost.Python.

Tie already has a meaning in the tuples library.  I think we ought to
consider something that has more connotations of _dynamic_ _language_
binding.  It's a bit unfortunate because we probably don't like some
of the connotations, but "Boost.Script" might be the most apporpriate
name.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com