[C++-sig] Pyste: feature requests

[Nicodemus]

Hi Prabhu,

Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:

>Hi,
>
> 1. Something like the C compiler's '-c' option.  In this case Pyste
>    should simply generate the wrapper code and none of the module
>    code i.e. for an invocation like so:
>
>      pyste.py --out build --multiple -c file1.pyste
>
>    nothing should be added to test.cpp and just a _file.cpp (or
>    whatever) should be generated which can be then compiled.  Then
>    invoking 
>
>      pyste.py --module=test --out build/ --multiple file1.pyste \
>               file2.pyste
>
>    should generate test.cpp with the appropriate code.  This makes it
>    much easier to handle dependencies.  Perhaps the option should be
>    called '-w' for 'just-wrap'?
>

I don't understand exactly what you are saying. Are you suggesting that 
instead of generating:

#include <...>

BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(module)
{
    class_<A>(...);
}

You want to be able to generate just this:

    class_<A>(...);

?

How does that help you handle dependencies?

> 2. Instead of generating files for each header, it would be useful if
>    one file were generated per pyste file when --multiple were used.
>    The trouble with the current approach of --multiple is that
>    several files can be generated per pyste file.  This causes
>    problems with dependencies since one does not (easily) know
>    apriori what files will be generated.  For example changing -D
>    options could change the number of files generated.  Perhaps
>    instead of changing the behaviour of the --multiple option one one
>    could add another option called --one-file (with a better name).
>    Alternatively if the argument to --out is a filename (file.cpp)
>    that may or may not exist then that file is written, if the
>    argument is a directory (which exists) then multiple files can be
>    generated in that directory.
>  
>

Good idea! When I implemented the --multiple option, I didn't consider 
dependencies. I will put in my TODO list, shouldn't be too hard to 
implement this.

>I think these options or something along these lines would make life
>easier when wrapping larger libraries.
>
>What do you folks think?
>

Thanks a lot for your suggestions!

Regards,
Nicodemus.