Re: [pygccxml-development] improving user experience

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

Roman Yakovenko wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Matthias Baas <ba...@ir...> wrote:
>> So could we just change this to:
>>
>>     msg = [ 'Declaration "%s" could not be exported.' % decl ]
>>
>> All the declarations already have a suitable __str__() method that
>> creates the full signature, so the above makes it much easier to exactly
>> identify the actual declaration.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Tell me please, whether it useful now or not. 

Yes, thanks!

> My main concern is that line is too long now.
> May be I should devide it.

Personally, I'm against splitting lines. Actually, I'd even prefer to 
have the entire warning message in one single line so that I see the 
entire message when I 'grep' for a particular declaration.
This would also make it easier to write scripts that further process a 
log file (e.g. a filter that transforms the single-line log into an 
easier to read log or even a set of html pages).

By the way, now I get the following warnings (among others):

.
.
.
Declaration "MTime & MTime::operator--(int arg0) [member_operator]" 
could not be exported.
"operator--" is not supported.
         See Boost.Python documentation: 
http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/v2/operators.html#introduction.

Declaration "MTime & MTime::operator--(int arg0) [member_operator]": 
Function "MTime & MTime::operator--(int arg0) [member_operator]" takes 
as argument (name=arg0, pos=0 ) non-const reference to C++ fundamental 
type - function could not be called from Python.
.
.
.

There are two things that I don't understand here:

1) The second message complains about the first argument being a 
non-const reference to a C++ fundamental type. But the first argument is 
just an ordinary integer (no reference at all). So what's the problem here?

2) Why does the second warning appear at all? The first warning already 
told me that the operator cannot be exported anyway. (If it is 
intentional that pyplusplus reports all potential problems then that's 
fine with me and I'm not arguing that this should be changed. I'm more 
confused about the previous point that I don't understand the second 
message)


- Matthias -