[C++-sig] Re: Re: Boost.Python v2: object facilities updated
david.abrahams at rcn.com
Thu Jun 20 04:43:26 CEST 2002
From: "Dave Hawkes" <daveh at cadlink.com>
> > In theory it's not, but I could really use some help with that stuff.
> > you think you might take on the job of fleshing out the missing pieces?
> > It's fairly mechanical, mostly, but requires some attention. My idea
> > follow the Python/C API documentation and make files like
> > object_protocol.hpp which mirror pages like
> > http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/api/object.html. Of course, many
> > functions are covered by the operators already defined, so we don't
> > separate functions for those. The idea is just to cover the built-in
> > functions (http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/lib/built-in-funcs.html)
> > any 'C' API functions which aren't otherwise handled.
> I have a number of ideas for an aproach to this,
Not to thwart creativity, but I hope you're not thinking of anything too
fancy. It does seem like a fairly mechanical job to me...
> but I want to try a couple
> of things before I post here. Once I'm clear what's involved I can let
> know if I can do this, plus some timescales.
Thanks, I really appreciate your contributions.
> An issue I keep having with 'object' is the lack of a default
> think this may have been discussed before, but I can't remember the
You can always search
> What is the reason for not creating a Py_None object with the default
No direct analogue in Python. But that's not neccessarily a good reason.
Wouldn't it be better to have a None object, though?
object x = None;
> With all its extra functionality now it can be used for much
> more than just capturing return values. It is occasionally useful to
> an object and defer its actual assignment.
Sure. I'll add the default constructor if there's a good reason to, but I
don't see one yet.
More information about the Cplusplus-sig