[C++-sig] Pyste: added new build options.

[Nicodemus]

Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:

>>>>>>"N" == nicodemus  <nicodemus at globalite.com.br> writes:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>    >> (a) support for hold_with_*, add path to sys.path,
>    >> (b) fix for the --multiple bug and
>    >> (c) support for the --only-wrap and --only-main?
>    >>
>    >> Please let me know what you'd prefer and I'll send you the
>    >> appropriate patch.
>
>    N> I already applied the other too, you can send only this new
>
>I've attached the patch for the new options.  The patched pyste.py
>file also has updated documentation on the available options.  Take a
>look at my changes and if you think its OK check it in.  The
>SingleCodeUnit.py changes just one line.  I explicity call close since
>I don't really trust/know when the object will actually be deleted.
>Maybe I'm paranoid but I think its better safe than sorry.
>

Certainly, it was a lapse from my part. 8)
"Explicit is better than implicit", after all.

I didn't check it in yet because I think there is one thing that is 
still pending. See my other post, about the order of instantiation of 
classes.

>    N> patch. Could you also write a doc patch, explaining this new
>    N> options? The relevant file is pyste/doc/pyste.txt.
>
>Oh, all the Pyste docs are generated from that text file?  Cool!  I'll
>add documentation to it.  
>

Yes, it is cool. 8)
It uses Joel's quickdoc:
boost\libs\spirit\example\application\quickdoc

>I was thinking of adding a few things:
>
> * installation via distutils (I think its worth documenting)
> * update the options page (that is if you think my patch is OK).
> * There is a small section in the Wrapper docs where I'd like to
>   clarify a point.
> * Mention that you can import another Python file in the same
>   directory and use that.  I don't quite know where this would go but
>   I guess the wrapper section is good enough.
>
>However its going to take me a little while to add this.  Is it OK if
>I get to this by the weekend (or if lucky earlier)?
>

Sounds great! Thanks a lot.

>Actually, I think it would be great if we could also look at the
>following features:
>
>  1. Can we specify exclude/rename function names in greater detail.
>     Currently its impossible to selectively exclude one particular
>     overloaded function.
>  
>

I think that will be solved when meta programming is avaiable in the 
Pyste files. I don't know how to stretch the current syntax to support 
this, but suggestions are welcome.

>  2. The current --multiple option generates one file per interface
>     file.  I guess that is OK but maybe it would be useful to
>     optionally specify the output filename in the interface.  I think
>     this should be a low priority to do item (if at all it is
>     useful).
>  
>

I think it would clutter the command line interface a little, but if it 
is useful we could add it.

Regards,
Nicodemus.