[C++-sig] [Boost.Python v3] Features and Scope
dave at boostpro.com
Sat Aug 27 22:40:17 CEST 2011
on Fri Aug 26 2011, Jim Bosch <talljimbo-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/26/2011 01:09 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> Well, speaking for myself, mostly time. I'd be inclined to do a rewrite
>> along the lines of the langbinding ideas if I had time.
> I had only been vaguely aware of langbinding until I followed up on
> your last email. It's a very nice separation, though after bad
> experiences using SWIG I am a little wary about trying to build a
> one-size-fits-all front-end for different languages.
> It seems like a reasonable way to proceed would be to try to convert
> Boost.Python to the langbinding interface, but not be obsessive about
> avoiding Python-specific hacks in the frontend right now.
Absolutely perfect; that's what I was thinking.
> Once we're more feature-complete in Python, we can worry about finding
> language-agnostic ways to do things that weren't anticipated in the
> original langbinding design.
>> Another thing I think should be examined and refreshed is the
>> documentation style.
> Agreed. And I wouldn't just limit it to the official documentation;
> there are a lot of little tidbits of useful but often very old
> Boost.Python knowledge scattered around the internet (often on
> Python-affiliated sites or wikis). It'd be nice to unify a lot of
> that, or at least update the obsolete stuff and add links to a more
> complete set of official documentation.
>> Good. Although, if I were you I would also carefully re-examine the
>> core to see if it has the best design.
> I wasn't originally planning on doing a full re-evaluation, but after
> looking over the langbinding proposal and hearing some of the other
> ideas, I think that will probably be necessary.
Happy to discuss with you anywhere you get stuck. By the way, there's
actually a bunch of langbinding code checked into the SVN repo
somewhere. Ah, here:
>> on Thu Aug 25 2011, Ralf Grosse-Kunstleve<rwgrosse-kunstleve-AT-lbl.gov> wrote:
>>> Troy and Ravi have done a significant amount of work.
>> Yes, and hopefully integrating that could be part of any next steps.
>>> I hope they will comment for themselves.
> I was under the impression their work had already been integrated into
> Boost.Python v2. Is there a large repository of additional
> Boost.Python work elsewhere that I should be aware of?
It's my impression that the integration was stalled due to Ralf's
concerns about object code size. But I could be wrong.
>> Interesting idea. How does sharing types across multiple modules work
>> in that scenario?
> Hmm. I'm guessing the global type registry would still be the
> default, and per-module registries would override these when
> available? It sounds like Stefan has a clear use case in mind, and
> I'd be curious to know what it is.
>> on Fri Aug 26 2011, Jim Bosch<talljimbo-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/26/2011 04:17 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
>>>> What sort of improvements did you have in mind?
>>> My list includes:
>>> - Propagating constness to Python (essentially already done as an
>>> extension, but it could have a much nicer interface if I could mess
>>> with class_ itself).
>> Oooh, now that one is tricky. I'd like to see the design you have in
>> mind. Python doesn't have constness; it has immutability, which is
>> subtly different.
> Essentially, C++ objects returned as const references, pointers, or
> smart pointers get converted into a Python proxy object with methods
> that forward to the real wrapped object, but only if those methods are
> marked as const. The proxy objects have rvalue converters but no
> lvalue converters.
I like it!
More information about the Cplusplus-sig