Hi,

Paul wrote:

...

Pyste was generating constructors defs for abstract classes. I've changed Pyste so that it will insert no_init (and emit no constructors) for abstract classes.

Is this the correct behaviour for an abstract class? eg. class_< Foo, boost::noncopyable>("Foo", no_init)

This from the FAQ states this quite clearly:

http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/moinmoin/boost_2epython_2fFAQ

...

...

* no_init means "do not try to create an

instance of that Python object, create __init__ function that throws an exception"

...

* noncopyable means "do not try to register

a converter which can convert C++ return values of that class to Python".

...

When wrapping an abstract class, it's necessary

to specify both.

However, what's confusing me is that I thought specifying no_init would make the following incorrect:

class Bar(CppModule.Foo): def __init__(self): CppModule.Foo.__init__(self)

Is that correct?

I think this is correct. Abstract class has constructors.

Roman

I think CppModule.Foo.__init__(self) simply throws an exception (because of no_init). Thus Bar cannot be instantiated. For now, __init__ must be called to initialize Python instance correctly, no matter whether the exposed class is abstract or not: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2004-June/007522.html shin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/