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

[Rene Rivera]

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

OK :-)

>> > 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.
>
>Script it better.. It doesn't feel good though, but it might just take
>some time to get used to. :)

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?


-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq