X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 20:06:23 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: lihata in perl (was Re: [geda-user] Re: Project file)
In-Reply-To: <20180724165257.3F077841DEC5@turkos.aspodata.se>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1807242000490.8169@igor2priv>
References: <CAGqyy=bsRdbA8r8q1MTX7pG9ASZiqpsw1-kbj=geTwLoWaz1sA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20180723152807 DOT 13d27cadcd023b63aa3fd9c0 AT gmail DOT com> <CAGqyy=ZC68vU+8vpM4oai5=Mrfq_=QpyojzDwwW-50EV6P4q3A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807231832560 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv>
 <20180723174658 DOT 32979841DEBA AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807232013250 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv> <20180723195942 DOT 605CB841DEBA AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807240343390 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv> <20180724145646 DOT 1253D841DEC6 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807241715380 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv> <20180724165257 DOT 3F077841DEC5 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk



On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, karl AT aspodata DOT se wrote:

> Igor2:
> ...
>> Liblihata is implemented in 2 main layers (both in plain C89):
>
> Is it this: svn://repo.hu/lihata

Yup, that one. Home page and documentation (mirror of a subdir from the 
above svn): http://repo.hu/projects/lihata/


>
> Perhaps it is best to start with something simple in c before
> taking the step to a script language.

Good idea!

>
> What would be better, the fungw route or the low level one ?

Both are good choices, each with its own pros and cons. I think it's up to 
you, how you'd like to use the result.

fungw pros: work once, have the binding work with all languages; already 
has some code

fungw cons: the main idea behind fungw is to support only the common 
minimum in all languages, which is function call, so the result will never 
feel as native as with a low level, language specific binding

direct perl pros: can be as native as you like; if you follow the php 
example, you use only the low level parser from the C lib and buidl your 
own native perl data structs in memory if the user wants to have a dom

direct perl cons: have to write from scratch, will work with perl only

I'm happy with either solution, even with parallel alternatives (e.g. 
both low level / native support for some languages and fungw bindings).

Regards,

Igor2