From: Willi R. <ri...@c-...> - 2007-05-03 06:52:45
|
Hi, after switching from player 1.6.5 to 2 I have problems with the fiducial ID= =2E=20 =46rom the docs=20 (http://playerstage.sourceforge.net/doc/Player-cvs/player/structplayer__fid= ucial__item.html)=20 I assume the id is the value specified by fiducial_return in the world file= =2E=20 However, using the python bindings I get a <Swig Object at=20 _20f63508_p_int32_t>. When casting to int I get arbitrary values, not the o= ne=20 specified in the world model. Also the bearings and orientation have gone. Best regards, wr |
From: Willi R. <ri...@c-...> - 2007-05-03 10:28:50
|
Hi, I think I've tracked down the bug: The fiducial id's type is not correctly= =20 wrapped by the swig file playerc.i. If I extend it by =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D (adapted from uint32_t) %typemap(out) int32_t { $result =3D PyInt_FromLong((long) (long long) $1); } =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D then I can get the fiducial ID by casting it to an int. But this is still o= nly=20 a workaround. In the player-1.6.5 version one could do just fiducials[0].id= =20 and it was directly casted to an int. Now I get the type=20 <class 'playerc.player_fiducial_item_tPtr'>. Unfortunately, I've no experience with swig. Can someone fix this bug the=20 right way? Am Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2007 08:52 schrieb Willi Richert: > Hi, > > after switching from player 1.6.5 to 2 I have problems with the fiducial > ID. > > >From the docs > > (http://playerstage.sourceforge.net/doc/Player-cvs/player/structplayer__f= id >ucial__item.html) I assume the id is the value specified by fiducial_return > in the world file. However, using the python bindings I get a <Swig Object > at > _20f63508_p_int32_t>. When casting to int I get arbitrary values, not the > one specified in the world model. > > Also the bearings and orientation have gone. > > Best regards, > wr > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Playerstage-users mailing list > Pla...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/playerstage-users =2D-=20 Gruss, wr =2D- Dipl.-Inform. Willi Richert C-LAB - Cooperative Computing & Communication Laboratory der Universit=E4t Paderborn und Siemens =46U.323 =46=FCrstenallee 11 D-33102 Paderborn Tel: +49 5251 60 6120 =46ax: +49 5251 60 6165 http://www.c-lab.de |
From: Brian G. <br...@ge...> - 2007-05-15 00:51:55
|
On May 3, 2007, at 3:28 AM, Willi Richert wrote: > I think I've tracked down the bug: The fiducial id's type is not > correctly > wrapped by the swig file playerc.i. If I extend it by > ============ (adapted from uint32_t) > %typemap(out) int32_t > { > $result = PyInt_FromLong((long) (long long) $1); > } > ============ > > then I can get the fiducial ID by casting it to an int. But this is > still only > a workaround. In the player-1.6.5 version one could do just > fiducials[0].id > and it was directly casted to an int. Now I get the type > <class 'playerc.player_fiducial_item_tPtr'>. > > Unfortunately, I've no experience with swig. Can someone fix this > bug the > right way? A more general question: any SWIG-knowledgeable volunteers to maintain the Python bindings? brian. |
From: Geoffrey B. <g....@au...> - 2007-05-15 04:46:22
|
It's on my list of things to do for 2.1, but I wouldn't claim to be a swig expert. Geoff Brian Gerkey wrote: > A more general question: any SWIG-knowledgeable volunteers to > maintain the Python bindings? > > brian. -- Robotics research group, University of Auckland http://www.ece.auckland.ac.nz/~gbig005/ |
From: Douglas S. B. <db...@br...> - 2007-05-15 16:09:17
|
Geoffrey Biggs wrote: > It's on my list of things to do for 2.1, but I wouldn't claim to be a > swig expert. I'm not a swig expert either, but Pyro's usage of Player/Stage/Gazebo depends on this, so I will help and test. Geoff, what do you have planned for 2.1 related to the swig components? -Doug > Geoff > > Brian Gerkey wrote: >> A more general question: any SWIG-knowledgeable volunteers to >> maintain the Python bindings? >> >> brian. > > |
From: Geoffrey B. <g....@au...> - 2007-05-16 05:33:38
|
I haven't planned anything really specific yet, but they are a bit of a mess at the moment. There is some generalisation that Brian did before the Player 2 release, but since then several message-specific bits have been added. I'd like to go through and clean out anything non-general if possible, and also have a look at generating proper class-like bindings rather than the current method of turning all structures and arrays into tuples, which isn't as usable. Geoff Douglas S. Blank wrote: > Geoffrey Biggs wrote: >> It's on my list of things to do for 2.1, but I wouldn't claim to be a >> swig expert. > > I'm not a swig expert either, but Pyro's usage of Player/Stage/Gazebo > depends on this, so I will help and test. > > Geoff, what do you have planned for 2.1 related to the swig components? > > -Doug -- Robotics research group, University of Auckland http://www.ece.auckland.ac.nz/~gbig005/ |