Re: [pygccxml-development] special functions/operators

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

On 8/29/06, Matthias Baas <ba...@ir...> wrote:
> Neal Becker wrote:
> >>>> cls = mb.class_("X")
> >>>> f = mb.free_function( "addAssign" )
> >>>> cls.add_method( f )
> >
> > I don't understand all of what you guys said, but it sounds like this is what
> > I had in mind.
> >
> > f = mb.free_function ("addAssign")
> >
> > what is "free_function"?  Is this new or already existing?

free_function returns a reference to free function declaration. It exists.

> It's the syntax of the Py++ high-level API, the pypp_api equivalent is
> the Function() method.
>
> So back to your initial example. Using the add_method approach you could
> write the following:
>
> f = root.Function("addAssign")
> f.rename("__iadd__")
> f.setPolicy(return_self())
> root.Class("X").addMethod(f)
>
> Currently, you would have to write the following instead:
>
> root.Class("X").cdef("__iadd__", "addAssign", return_self())
>
>
> Well, if *I* had to choose in this example, I would still use the latter
> option because of its brevity. Your goal has been to be less "low level"
> and get to a "better" API. But frankly, I don't see how the first option
> should have achieved these goals.

In this specific case you are right.

> But don't get me wrong, I don't say that add_method() is always a bad
> thing and cdef() is always better. There's merit in having something
> like add_method(), but probably not in this particular case (which was
> used as an example that a new API should improve).

Matthias, I think I still need this function, because it will improve few my
scripts and I like the idea. Do you want to implement it? It could be a nice
introduction to code creators factory.

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