On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Philip Martin
> You are more likely to get some response if you send a patch against
> trunk with a log message, see
Thanks for the link. I'm not ready yet with the trunk version bindings.
> Even if you do that I don't know that there is any great demand for Pascal bindings.
I'm not sure if there's any demand on them. It feels like I'm the only
one who needs them. I've written a front-end for the subversion
command-line client with FPC, and I'm not satisfied with it. The
problem is parsing svn output. XML feature is good, but it cannot be
used for all cases. And sometimes it hits the performance. Using the
library seems to me the better solution.
The new Delphi (which is ObjectPascal IDE) is proud of its subversion
integration, but i'm sure it's written in C/C++, so they didn't have
to use Pascal bindings.
> Are they generated or written by hand?
They're 95% generated. Except for svn_error_code.h, since it uses
macros heavily, and the parser is not yet good enough to handle them
properly. Some macros are also hand translated:
i.e macro (svn_pool.h)
#define svn_pool_clear apr_pool_clear
is translated as inline function by hand, since Pascal tends not to use macros.
> Do they have regression tests?
How can this be applied? The Pascal bindings are not providing any
kind of high-level wrappers over the library. All Subversion functions
and structures are used directly.
> Are they tied to any particular environment?
No. The bindings should be used with Free Pascal Compiler or Delphi
and should work on any system these compiler support.
I've tested them on Windows (SlikSVN dlls) and MacOSX (Xcode .dylibs)
and the bindings did work fine.
> Is Dmitry volunteering to stick around and maintain these bindings?
Yes, I am volunteering. if the bindings are accepted (acceptable). I'm
also helping FPC project to maintain other C-library bindings (i.e.
Received on 2010-09-03 10:31:10 CEST