rust-bitfield VS rust-cpp

The bitfield library has very few examples and I am not sure if it will work...

I am the current passive maintainer of the cpp crate: https://github.com/mystor/rust-cpp

I would like to utilize OMPL's functionality in Rust code, so I want to call into OMPL C++ code somehow in Rust. I've seen two (non-mutually-exclusive) options so far: - rust-cpp, which allows you to write C++ code in Rust within the cpp!() macro. - cxx, which allows you to define both sides of the FFI boundary manually (as opposed to bindgen's automatic generation).

There's also the cpp and cxx crates for doing C++/Rust interop, but they probably aren't appropriate to use in all cases. The C ABI is definitely the safest way to go unless you're really trying to marry Rust and C++ code bases, not just writing library bindings.

https://github.com/mystor/rust-cpp <- not a transpiler, but almost as good

Otherwise, C would never have achieved success in MS-DOS when all the stuff it was binding to at the time required blocks of inline assembly. (Crates like rust-cpp do exist, which allow "inline C++" in the same way that C++ allows inline assembly.)

Actually, you can make inline C++ macro in Rust. Similar unholy monstrosities exist for inline python, inline C, inline SQL, inline HTML,...

Here is a more serious project that allows to embed C++ code directly in your Rust code: https://github.com/mystor/rust-cpp

Don't underestimate the power of procedural macros: https://github.com/mystor/rust-cpp

Alright, thanks for all your ideas! I also found this mystor/rust-cpp, which apparently allows inline c++ as opposed to cxx. Having yet to try out any of these, I like the idea of inline code more. Thought now I feel I need to brush up my skills a bit more to try this stuff out.