Re: [pygccxml-development] pypp_api review

[Allen B. <al...@vr...>]

>>I need to look into this once I can get the code working again.  We also
>>need to make a list of all the things that we would want to be able to
>>configure and set.  This would help us to understand how it may be best
>>presented to a user.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes this is what I will try to do this evening.
>  
>
Could you summary the results and post them on the wiki for discussion?  
I think a good place to start would be the parameters that are currently 
passed to the init() and writeModule() methods of the ModuleBuilder.  
 From there we/I need to look at what configuration options Matthias is 
using and add the unique ones to the list of things to support.  After 
that we can start discussing ideas for new options that may be needed (I 
can already think of a few that would be helpful).

>  
>
>>When you refer to module_builder are you talking about some new class
>>you have added in pyplusplus?
>>    
>>
>
>No. I am just switched to pyplusplus coding convention. I refer to the
>class that you and
>Matthias will create. I am waiting for this. I took a look on the
>ModuleBuilder class\module
>and moved some functionality to the right place. That's all.
>  
>
OK. The "move some functionality to the right place" is the part that 
surprised me.  I think we need to make sure we are all on the same page 
here because right now it seems like you (Roman) are looking to extend 
the internal pyplusplus APIs to not only support the new functionality 
but also looking to have users call to it directly.  My goal at least 
was that users would only need to use the pypp_api and would never need 
to know about or call the internal APIs.  I think Matthais was working 
in a similar direction but we will have to ask him.  We should all make 
sure we are clear on what the goal is we are trying to accomplish so we 
don't end up with duplicated effort and simply a more powerful internal 
api for pyplusplus.

-Allen