Re: [pygccxml-development] Re: Roadmap?

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

On 3/29/06, Matthias Baas <ba...@ir...> wrote:
> Roman Yakovenko wrote:
> > Where you will setup module name?
>
> In the constructor of the module builder (and probably with an
> appropriate "configuration method", but such a thing is still missing in
> the experimental module).

There are few reasons I want user to call method "create code creators tree=
".
One of them is that I think an user should be aware of code creators
tree, at least to the fact that after this call he can not change decl
wrapper properties. Second reason I want to guide user through the
process:

step 1: parse
step 2: configure declarations
step 3: create code creators
step 4: configure them
step 5: write module to files.

I think every step is important

> >> I *am* implementing the experimental module by using the functionality
> >> provided by pyplusplus. This has always been the case. I'm not plannin=
g
> >> on implementing my own code generation tool... :)
> >
> > Honestly, I don't see reuse of functionality except code creators.
>
> Decorating the declarations is done using the corresponding methods in
> the decl_wrappers.

:-), code creators and small part of decl_wrappers, this is not enough.

> >> But just because a piece of code is located in another directory doesn=
't
> >> mean it is more stable, does it?
> >
> > Yes it does. I have more then 40 unit testers + 3 projects ( EasyBMP,
> > boost.date_time and TnFOX ).
>
> Well, yes, the unit tests are quite impressive and already a sign of the
> quality of the software, but: the unit tests can only test an
> implementation, but not the "usability" or how intuitive an interface is.

Tomorrow I will commit "select" interface that has been updated according t=
o
your suggestions. So there will be not much difference in interface. I hope=
 we
will have same level of usability.

> >> I never said you should not do a release. I'm in favor of a new releas=
e!
> >> I'm only arguing that a new release shouldn't mean the end of the
> >> experimental module.
> >
> > Do you plan another revolution in pyplusplus :-)?
>
> Oh, I wasn't aware there has been a revolution... :)

Common, you did it! :-)

> > If no I see no point in experimental module.
>
> Well, it's for experimenting (and sharing that)... ;-)

:-)

> - Matthias -


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