A question about BindingType and fallible conversion

[Søren Gammelmark]

Hi all,

I came across the BindingType template and tried to use it to convert an integer to my own Id-type. Given for example

class Id {

public:

  explicit Id(int v) : value(v) {}

  int toInt() const { return value; }

private:

  int value;

}

I can add the following template specializations

template <> struct TypeID<Id> {

static constexpr TYPEID get() {

return TypeID<int>::get();

}

};

template <> struct BindingType<Id> {

using WireType = int;

static WireType toWireType(const Id& v) {

return v.toInt();

}

static Id fromWireType(WireType v) {

return Id(v);

}

};

and get a transparent conversion for functions calling/returning Id-types. I have two questions:

1) Is this a supported way to use BindingType? (asking because it is defined in 'Internal')

2) What if the conversion is not infallible? Maybe.I only want to accept numbers larger than 0 or similar. I would like the JS-side to fail with an exception (similar to throwBindingError if I try to pass a null as a string).

I would like something like this be able to deal with JS-native types on the Java-script side and to avoid writing all the boilerplate to convert between the JS-native types and the C++ types.

Hope this makes sense, Any feedback appreciated.

Søren

[Eduard Mironenko]

Do we get paid for answering these questions or is there any portal that offers tasks that you can get paid for completing!? 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to emscripten-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/77411b31-6bd3-48f1-a016-09caa81d5651n%40googlegroups.com.