Re: [pygccxml-development] USE_CALLDEF_ORGANIZER

[Berserker <ber...@ho...>]

> It is not going to be too difficult. But, If I were you, I would not
> go this way. I would drop "overloading" and gave the functions
> different name.
 
> The interface exposed to the user is fragile and could be easily
> broken with addition/deletion of a function.
 
> Let me know if you still want the change.

I have another issue related to this topic :)
Please consider this case:

C++ code

class Bar
{
public:
   Bar(const std::string &str);
};

class Foo
{
public:
void set(const std::string &name, bool value);
void set(const std::string &name, int value);
void set(const std::string &name, const std::string &value);
void set(const std::string &name, const Bar &value);
};


Python code

f = Foo()
f.setAttribute("alfa")


The problem here is that boost::python calls the overload with
"Bar" as argument because is the last (available) registered.
What's your opinion about this? Shouldn't the registration order 
be:

-> Foo::set(const std::string &name, const Bar &value);
-> Foo::set(const std::string &name, const std::string &value);
-> Foo::set(const std::string &name, int value);
-> Foo::set(const std::string &name, bool value);

As "general rule" Bar is dependent/related from std::string because 
of it's implicit convertibility? 
Maybe decl_wrappers.algorithm.registration_order.is_related must
be updated according to this rule.


 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Un mondo di personalizzazioni per Messenger, PC e cellulare
http://www.pimpit.it/