[C++-sig] Pyste: support for user defined code.
nicodemus at globalite.com.br
Sun Aug 17 20:34:40 CEST 2003
Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>>>>>>"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.
I agree with Prabhu, specially because with this approach you can do
what you want, Niall:
It's not that much complexity added, in my opinion. 8)
More information about the Cplusplus-sig