In article <Pine.LNX.4.40.0208041249280.28543-100000 / ngwee.ugcs.caltech.edu>,
Leon Torres  <leon / ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Tom Sawyer wrote:
>
>> i was just reading over a little of the swig docs and HOLY CODING! from
>> my limited reading it appears that once a swig interface definition is
>> created you can generate a wrapper for any of the supported scripting
>> languages. is that true?
>[snip]
>> if what i gather from the above holds, then a wxWindows binding for ruby
>> should be pretty sraight foward for anyone with ruby and swig
>> experience. the same holds true for ParaGUI,
>
>As a matter of fact, I attempted to swig a ParaGUI binding for Ruby
>earlier this year. IIRC, all that had to be done was create a
>Ruby-specific typemap for a callback function; the rest of the interface
>definition was already in place, and language agnostic to boot. However,
>it didn't work for some forgotten reason, so I decided to wait for the
>Ruby swig module to mature a bit. From what other posters say about
>swig's advances, maybe it's time to try again. :)
>

You definately should try it again.  From what I understand swig 1.3.12 
was a huge improvement over earlier versions (I started out with 1.3.12, 
now 1.3.13 is out ).

Phil