Re: [Swig-user] new style default arguments handling in SWIG3 and Python

[Miloš J. <mil...@sk...>]

Hi Vadim,

thanks for your prompt reply!

I'm not questioning the motivations for this, I think they are all valid as
far as I can assess, especially if they are in long-term going to reduce
the size of the C++ code.
I'm just pointing out that this is a backward incompatible change that
should be documented in bold in the CHANGES file (as other such changes
are).

As for:

2015-04-22 15:01 GMT+02:00 Vadim Zeitlin <vz...@ze...>:

> 1. It is much more convenient to see the function argument names and, at
>    the very least, their number for Python programmers using the generated
>    API. Let's not forget that the goal is not to make SWIG just generate
>    something, the goal is to make the API usable from Python and losing all
>    information about arguments doesn't help at all with this.
>

and

 For me the answer is emphatically yes and I honestly don't see how could
> it be argued otherwise if you think about it from the point of view of the
> programmer using the Python API.
>

To be honest, in a group of 5 Python programmers and 2 C++ programmers
being interfaced by SWIG;), those Python programmers have never ever read
the module.py file (they use a doxygen documentation built from module.i)
and we C++ programmers have almost never read module.py either since the
important things that SWIG is doing were always in the module_py_wrap.cc
file.

That's just to add -- and why I see the main motivation being reducing and
simplifying C++ code size rather than making .py files more readable (most
of the file is just so much boilerplate for a regular Python programmer
that I don't think you can anticipate they would actually read it).

Anyway, back to my problem -- do our typemaps look all right to you?

Thanks,
Milos