RE: Overriding FFI ctype constructors?
- From: Claire Lewis <claire_lewis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: LuaJIT <luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:51:13 +1030
Sorry, I now understand why you wrapped it. I need a metatable on the factory
type/table, not on the constructed type. Duh :)
Thanks,
- Claire,
----------------------------------------
> From: claire_lewis@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Overriding FFI ctype constructors?
> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:49:23 +1030
>
>
> > I don't know the true nature of your opaque type, but I would wrap it
> > in someting.
>
> I'm not even sure that I would need to wrap it to do that?
>
> Couldn't one just do:
>
> ffi.cdef[[
> typedef struct _cl_platform_id * cl_platform_id;
> ]]
>
>
> CLPlatform_mt = {
> __index = {
> new = function(params)
> return opencl.create_new_platform_id() -- could even just use this direct as
> new
> end,
> }
> }
>
> cl_platform_id = ffi.metatype("cl_platform_id", CLPlatform_mt)
> obj = cl_platform_id.new(params)
>
> > So, I guess it depends on the syntax you're willing to deal with, and how
> > much
> > auxilary structures you're willing to add to your interfaces.
>
> I am already adding metatables to various opaque structs/typedefs, so it's
> not a big addition to put in a new(), certainly.
>
> I'm not sure I need the additional structures, but I guess I was mostly after
> a way to make it behave the same as other structs with regard to FFI syntax.
> I suppose there's no reason I couldn't wrap them all to do it this way, but...
>
> Anyway, this is certainly much neater than what I had.
>
> Thanks,
> - Claire
Other related posts:
