Re: [pygccxml-development] Printing declarations...
Brought to you by:
mbaas,
roman_yakovenko
From: Matthias B. <ba...@ir...> - 2006-03-20 10:09:14
|
Roman Yakovenko wrote: >> typedef double (::MVector::*bracket_op)(unsigned int i) const; >> >> and then rewrite the above as >> >> MVector_exposer.def( "__call__" >> , (bracket_op)(&MVector::operator()) >> , ( bp::arg("i") ) >> , bp::default_call_policies() ); >> >> then it compiles fine. Could this scheme be incorporated in pyplusplus? > > Yes. I need it also for template functions too. Do you think we need to > implement this before release or after? Whenever you have some time you can spend on it. In the above case, the call operator is not that important, so I can wait. > Also, untill I add this code to pyplusplus and you don't have an other > operator () > on MVector you can set create_with_signature to false. I didn't notice a difference in the generated code....? >> Almost, the signature is there but the actual method name is missing. > > Okay, I give up :-). I understand what you want, but I don't > understand the format. The more it resembles the original source code the better. I'm dumping the declarations into a log file that the user can inspect. For example, he could just grep for a particular function name to find out what decorations have been applied to that function. > Also, why do you need this from framework. You have all tools to > create almost any format by your own? Well, yes, but it seems that recreating the source code doesn't look that easy to me (and I don't know how much of the original source code (which could be reused here) has survived in the output from gccxml). When I have some time left I can have a look at it. Would you like the idea to add __str__() methods to the declaration_t classes? (then a user could just print a declaration and see exactly what it is) - Matthias - |