Re: [pygccxml-development] pyplusplus status

[Matthias B. <ba...@ir...>]

Allen Bierbaum wrote:
> I did not know you were still keeping these up-to-date.  I have to admit 
> it has been a long time since I looked at this interface but it does 
> seem a little more high-level or at least more self contained.

Being self contained has always been a feature that I liked with our 
high level API(s). There has always been a clear separation between 
"high level" and "low level" stuff which in my opinion is an advantage 
to keep maintenance simpler. Unfortunately, this separation got somewhat 
lost in Roman's version and when I look at code in pyplusplus (or even 
try to modify something) I'm not always sure if this belongs to the "low 
level" side and that there might be interdependencies that I just don't 
know of (see my previous post about the broken make_flatten() function).

> Q: If I remember correctly, when I first wrote these I had to modify the 
> code creators to change they code they output.  Is this still necessary 
> or is everything captured in the api itself?  

The code in the repository is exactly the code that I am using, I don't 
have a private version of pyplusplus that is different from the repository.

> Maybe the better way to 
> say this is how do you handle decorating and creating for features that 
> are not supported by Roman's API?

Which features are you referring to? There might still be some 
decoration functions that don't have the desired effect (like 
finalize()) because the underlying functionality in pyplusplus is still 
missing. Some other stuff (like argument policies) are implemented in 
pypp_api itself.

- Matthias -