Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: python interpreter feasible?
RE: python interpreter feasible?
From: Dan Everton <dan_at_iocaine.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:30:18 +1000
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:23:13 +0300, "RaeNye" <raenye_at_netvision.net.il>
> >It's certainly feasible. I had a go at porting LUA to Rockbox and it wasn't
> too hard.
> That only took two years :P
Actually your post was one of the things that made me look at Lua :)
> How large is the .rock, BTW?
I don't really remember unfortunately, and I don't have a build
environment at the moment (new PC). I think it was around the 200 KiB
mark but that could be way off. Either way it was definitely too large
for targets with only 64 KiB for the plugin buffer.
> >The largest chunk of work is making the Rockbox API visible to the
> scripting language.
> >Though even then it mainly just requires some thinking and manual work to
> write up all the API wrappers.
> Can some automatic tool (e.g., swig) be used to export the API?
I had a look at some of the tools to do this (e.g. swig and tolua++) but
the problem with using those is that the Rockbox plugin API isn't a
great match for scripting language use. A straight translation would
lead to a somewhat awkward API. So some degree of manual API building
will still be needed.
Received on 2008-09-03