Re: Thick bindings to a C library and gnattest: suggestions?

[Maurizio Tomasi <ziotom78@gmail.com>]

On Monday, July 1, 2013 2:32:27 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> The first point is that it is not the objective of bindings to manage
> memory. Of course, there could be bindings which do that, in which case you
> would allocate objects transparently to the caller and have some garbage
> collection schema behind opaque handles to the objects. This is a possible
> design but it is not what you probably wanted. So let us take for granted
> that it is the client's responsibility to allocate objects. In this case
> the bindings shall work for any kind of objects allocated in any possible
> memory pool, stack included.

Thanks a lot for your long and detailed answer, Dmitry! Your suggestion of letting the client do all the memory management stuff is very reasonable and flexible. I'll try to do that.

Cheers,
  Maurizio.