Re: [Swig-user] argument names missing in JNI wrapper

[<ne...@do...>]

> ne...@do... wrote:
>> First of all, I am really impressed of the versatility and completeness of SWIG. I
>> am destined to use it for generating all necessary language bindings for some work
>> projects and consider it perfect, but:
>>
>> When generating a JNI wrapper from a .swg file, the JNI methods use the jarg[1..]
>> naming for arguments, while the c# wrapper uses the names that I use in the .swg
>> file.  This is quite a shame for SWIG as many editors now show the argument names.
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> bar.swg:
>> extern int foo(int a, float b);
>>
>> becomes barJNI.java:
>> public static final native int foo(int jarg1, float jarg2);
>>
>> and bar.cs:
>> public static int foo(int a, float b) {...}
>>
>> Is this due to JAVA naming conventions or a SWIG shortcoming?
>>
>
> I think it is a shortcoming in your observations ;) This is what is
> generated:
>
> bar.java:
>    public static int foo(int a, float b) {
>
> bar.cs:
>    public static int foo(int a, float b) {
>
> However, in the intermediary classes:
>
> barJNI.java:
>    public final static native int foo(int jarg1, float jarg2);
>
> barPINVOKE.cs:
>    public static extern int foo(int jarg1, float jarg2);
>
> The intermediary classes are implementation detail classes, so we never
> bothered with nice parameter names and in fact the parameter names
> purposefully match those in the C/C++ layer. Using arg1 and jarg1 etc in
> the C/C++ code is historic, but I think there is more chance of symbol
> clashes if using the original parameter names. Note that more recent
> versions of SWIG has getter better:
>
> void foo(int in);
>
> used to generate C# proxy class code with parameter names that didn't
> compile. So in summary, the idea is that the functions that the user
> ultimately uses have the nice parameter names.
>
> William
>

Great thanks for the explanation. Now I feel safe with SWIG and will go on, actually
using it.

Christian