Re: [pygccxml-development] Another status report...

[Roman Y. <rom...@gm...>]

On 3/15/06, Matthias Baas <ba...@ir...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> unless I find some bugs I'm currently done with the selection stuff in
> the experimental folder. With the current version I can now almost
> create the same bindings as before with only slight adjustments to my
> script. By default, the selection is similar to Allen's initial version
>   but you can "activate" more flexible queries if desired to get
> something that rather resembles my initial version.
> The next thing I need to get the same bindings as before is the ability
> to add custom methods, I haven't checked yet if Allen's addMethod()
> method still works or not, I'll try to do that tomorrow....

Can you work directly on decl_wrappers? Now I understand that this is a ver=
y
important future.

> I have also done some updates in the wiki:
>
> - There's one more goal I added and I even dared adding it to the top of
> the list as I would consider that this is the "ultimate" goal for me:
> pyplusplus  (and its API) should minimize the time it takes to create
> the final bindings for a C++ library. Do you agree on that?

I don't know, if we achieve all other goals this will be achieved as well.

> - To most of the issues I added an "Experimental version" section that
> provides a short outline how the current code in the experimental folder
> handles the respective issue. Of course, as this code is still
> "experimental" this doesn't mean that this is how the issue will
> definitely be resolved, but it's rather one proposal that exists in code
> so that it can be tried out to see how well it works in practice.

Good.

> - I've removed my comments from the "What operations does the selection
> interface provide?" topic as there is no general disagreement on my
> part. But I added a new "open issue" about the overloaded methods.

I will take a look, later

> How should we proceed now to resolve the issues in the wiki? There still
> seems to be some disagreement, but I don't always see how an alternative
> proposal would look like. So should we schedule another chat session and
> go over those issues trying to find a resolution? Or do you already have
> some comments about my latest changes?

Yes. I have. But I prefer to tell you good news. Almost all features
you need for Maya SDK
already in main branch. There 2 missing features:

adding code creators to decl_wrappers

resolving issue with overloaded functions

> Could you try them out?

I tried them and read your code.

> Do you need more documentation about the usage?

No

> Does the selection work for you or were you confused when you tried using=
 it?

Yes, a little. You mix 2 concepts:
1. what user is searching for
2. where it should be searched.

If you want I can explain what is wrong with it. But I really don't
want. You are doing great
job and I only tell you these or that thing is wrong. I took almost
all your ideas and
added them to main branch.

1. filters, I made for example only cosmetic changes and add more power in =
some
    places

2. select interface. it is now fully implemented.

>(for me, it's still the
> overloaded methods that can lead to some "surprises")
>
> So what are your plans for the next couple of days?

1. First of all I will port all my code to new API. This step will
find bugs and weaknesses.

>What does our next "milestone" look like?

There are few issues need to be resolved in next week or two:
1. adding code creators to decl wrappers
2. resolving function overload issues
3. fixing finalize concept.
4. add few function/properties to module builder class:
    parser configuration
    code creators ( factory ) configuration

After this point: we should stay backward compatible
( =3D=3D you can use source code from CVS in production ). It means that=20
Maya bindings should work!

After this I plan to release "technology preview" version to
boost.python community.
( Hint: this is the first time that documentation will be integrated
and release :-) )

>I'd like to see the basic principles of
> selection/decoration to be resolved so that we can move on with thinking
> about features that have only been touched so far but that are not yet
> implemented at all.

They already resolved. In order to understand how all works take a look on:
pygccxml/unittests/
    filters_tester.py
    variable_matcher_tester.py
    namespace_matcher_tester.py

pyplusplus/unittests/ relevant code in customize method:
    member_functions_tester.py
    member_variables_tester.py
    operators_tester.py
    regression2_tester.py
    recursive_tester.py

pyplusplus/examples/py_easybmp/create_easybmp.py

> - Matthias -

What do you think?

--
Roman Yakovenko
C++ Python language binding
http://www.language-binding.net/