Does it actually wrap libxcb, or does it generate bindings from the XCB protocol descriptions (XML)? I would think the latter would be less work and higher quality.
I don't know how it's achieved, but as I look at the bindings for this Windows a.p.i they return all sorts of raw pointers and other things, whereas in XCB bindings for Rust wrap the types in a Rust-friendly way so almost all of them are safe.
This Windows a.p.i. in Rust seems of a frankly atrocious design and most of the functions seem simple `extern "C"` declarations rather than actual attempts at proper wrapping.
I don't think that's a fair characterization. Most safe rust wrapper libraries are built in two layers: 1. Map the api's raw interface into raw rust types, usually with a simplistic code generator; this enables the bindings to closely track upstream api changes. 2. Use that raw interface to build a wrapper library that translates the api to use rustlike idioms and expose safe constructs.
This seems to be #1 only for now, which is fair because winapi is enormous. Also there may be many ways to expose a safe rust interface all with different tradeoffs, by leaving #2 open they don't lock in a single strategy prematurely. That said I am looking forward to a safe wrapper as well.
That it is atrocious because the project is young, and that it might become less atrocious in the future, is no argument that it not be atrocious.
However, my original reply was to this:
> It's a call out to Windows libraries that long predate Rust, and they are implemented in (mostly) C++. They don't provide any of the safety features on any data structure you pass to it. I don't see how it could be anything other than unsafe.
It very much can be, and is often done, it simply isn't (yet )here.
Hating this is like hating a primer-painted part for being grey: you denounce the propose and existence of primer and claim that it should have been painted with the finishing coat from the start.
I'm sorry you think the dull finish is ugly, but looking pretty is not its purpose. Its purpose is to bind strongly to the substrate it's on and provide a better surface for that shiny coat you so desire to adhere onto. Primer and language bindings alike.
> Hating this is like hating a primer-painted part for being grey: you denounce the propose and existence of primer and claim that it should have been painted with the finishing coat from the start.
No, it's simply arguing against the claim initially made that there is no way for it to not be grey.
> I'm sorry you think the dull finish is ugly, but looking pretty is not its purpose. Its purpose is to bind strongly to the substrate it's on and provide a better surface for that shiny coat you so desire to adhere onto. Primer and language bindings alike.
Maybe it isn't it's purpose, but the original post claimed that it was impossible for it to be difference, which is certainly false.
