[C++-sig] Pyste: support for user defined code.

Prabhu Ramachandran 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 mailing list