Yes, but I haven't had much time to work on it. See http://tinyurl.com/6w59y.
Ok, thanks.
I find all of these distrurbingly reminiscent of COM interfaces...
I intended the reminiscence but not the disturbance. :-)
Isn't it interesting that the mere use of a naming convention can evoke trepidation of the coding style you associate with that naming convention? Anyhow, my problem with the macro-based IDL is that it obscures the function signatures so badly, partly by separating the components so I don't recognise them as a signature, and partly by encasing them in a dense text block. I think that this: BOOST_IDL_BEGIN(Interface) BOOST_IDL_CONST_FN2(print, void, ostream&, int) BOOST_IDL_END(Interface) is readability-wise so far away from: struct Interface { void print(ostream&, int) const; }; that it is an enormous hurdle for BIL to overcome. The template-based IDL theorised in your docs seems much closer to what I would like: typedef interface< function<print, void (ostream&, int)> const
Interface;
There doesn't seem to be much support for this in the tarball, though. Do you have any experimental code for defining these interfaces? If not, do you forsee major issues in implementing them later? Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Vogt mattvogt@warpmail.net