[C++-sig] Patches and complete pyste replacement prototype for pyplusplus
roman.yakovenko at gmail.com
Mon Feb 27 06:33:41 CET 2006
On 2/25/06, Matthias Baas <baas at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> Sure (aren't we doing that already to some degree? ;)...
> Roman, I'd also like to hear how your version will differ from ours. Is
> it based on the same concepts than ours or is it something new? Now that
> we already have two separate implementations I think before creating a
> third one, it would be useful to discuss the pros and cons of the things
> we have and then create an improved API.
> I suppose eventually it would be more productive if we would all work on
> the same code instead of having three separate "branches".
I don't have my version. I just worked a little on pygccxml and
pyplusplus to adapt them
to new usage. I did not write even 20% of what you already have.
( Hey I was on vacation and now I am on Open Source Israel Conference :-) ).
> I haven't looked at Allen's patch, but I agree that a stable internal
> pyplusplus/pygccxml interface would definitely be useful to prevent our
> individual efforts from diverging too much.
That what I did. I already integrated Allen's patches to pygccxml and
some of them to
> That's what I did in my previous mail. And actually, as I tried to
> emphasize, Allen's and my version are pretty close. The basic concept is
> the same, I'd say we were just focusing on different areas. You could
> simply take one version and extend it with the stuff from the other
> version and both of us would be happy. :) So I don't see them as two
> competing proposals where you have to decide either for one or for the
I don't have my proposal at all. I was fine with code creators :-). I
do have an other
opinion how it should be implemented, but I will go with you and
Allen, I'd like your ideas.
> - Matthias -
> C++-sig mailing list
> C++-sig at python.org
C++ Python language binding
More information about the Cplusplus-sig