[C++-sig] Pyste/Pyplusplus/Boost documentation problems
dave at boost-consulting.com
Sun Jan 15 04:21:14 CET 2006
David Abrahams <dave at boost-consulting.com> writes:
> "Drumheller, Michael" <michael.drumheller at boeing.com> writes:
>> This gmane entry
>> says, among other things, the following
>> """If you can, use pyplusplus over pyste. I say that for ALL users of
>> pyste, pyplusplus is now mature enough to be useful as well as being
>> actively developed. It can also do quite a few tricks pyste cannot."""
>> If this is really the case, I think the Boost documentation needs to say
>> so. For example, the doc page
>> <<http://www.boost.org/libs/python/pyste/>> does not give any warning
>> that Pyste is essentially deprecated (which it apparently is, if the
>> above quote is true).
> It may be deprecated by the author of that quote, but the author of
> the quote has no official standing.
I should clarify that I don't mean any disrespect to Niall (the author
of the quote) and I am not hostile to pyplusplus. However, Roman (the
author of pyplusplus) has not made the sort of overtures I would
expect in order to get it to be officially endorsed by Boost(.Python).
He has been very "independent-minded," doing most of pyplusplus on his
own and rejecting the idea of working with the author of Pyste, from
whom he might have learned a few things, Pyste's weaknesses
notwithstanding. Without more coordination with the community it
should be no surprise that the community is not linking more to
pyplusplus. If it is indeed more capable than Pyste I would like to
be referencing it as the de-facto generator for Boost.Python wrpapers.
Is it a complete replacement for pyste? What should a Pyste user do
in order make his code us pyplusplus instead? IMO there ought to be a
Pyste compatibility layer.
would be a lot better if it took a more neutral tone; it seems to bash
Pyste a lot more than necessary. Fortunately, this page doesn't seem
to be linked from the pyplusplus main page but if Boost is going to
endorse pyplusplus, that same information *ought* to be made more
More information about the Cplusplus-sig