[C++-sig] Pyste: support for user defined code.
prabhu at aero.iitm.ernet.in
Sun Aug 17 20:09:57 CEST 2003
>>>>> "ND" == Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge at nedprod.com> writes:
ND> On 16 Aug 2003 at 16:51, Nicodemus wrote:
>> add_include('header1', 'header2', 'header3') add_code(MODULE,
ND> This seems to me to add complexity where you don't need
ND> it. You should have an "Include()" directive which lets you
ND> place includes before at the top, after that, module
ND> definitions etc.
ND> Then you place all the relevent code you want to insert into
ND> .cpp files which are then #include'd by the Include() in the
ND> right place.
ND> This makes keeping bits separate and maintainable much
ND> easier. It's what I use myself here using a python script to
ND> postprocess the pyste output.
I beg to differ.
1. In the suggested case (add_header, add_code etc.) the source for
the generated .cpp file is *already* in one easy to maintain place
viz the .pyste file. So I see no maintainability issue here since
the source is in one place already. Splitting already well
organized bits into smaller pieces leads to confusion since code
fragments that are logically related are now spread over several
2. The current approach allows users to do exactly what they want.
In fact, you can still include whatever files you want to in the
relevant sections. So while the "include" approach straight
jackets the user, the more generic approach is totally flexible
and will also work for you.
3. Splitting files into smaller bits is possible when you have a few
files. When you already have several .pyste files (around 40 in
my case) adding two or three more files per pyste file just to
expose a std::vector or add user defined code leads to an
unmanageable number of files.
More information about the Cplusplus-sig