|
From: Roman Y. <rom...@gm...> - 2006-09-21 19:19:17
|
On 9/21/06, Matthias Baas <ba...@ir...> wrote: > > They should. Can you give me few good reasons to not create wrappers? > > Besides being an unnecessary layer of complexity that doesn't serve any > useful purpose and just leads to larger source files and executables, it > breaks my regression test. I understand that you don't like them, but I ask you for reasons :-). "unnecessary layer of complexity" all wrapper functionality for declaration defined in class A could be found in A_wrapper. "larger source files" - this way I think the generated source code is easier to understand and explain > It's the vector class again. This class has a couple of predefined > vectors as static members such as, for example, "zero" which is the > vector (0,0,0). > Doing an operation such as adding two vectors doesn't work anymore if > one operand is instantiated in Python and the other one is one of the > above predefined vectors: > > a = Vector(1,2,3) # this will be a Vector_wrapper instance > b = Vector.zero # this will be a Vector instance > c = a+b # fails > > I don't know exactly what happens here inside Boost.Python, but my guess > would be that the addition is only defined between two *wrapper* classes > and not between a wrapper class and the original class. > > I've experienced such things before with other libraries which is why > I'm only creating wrapper classes when it is absolutely necessary. This is a valid point, that I should check. -- Roman Yakovenko C++ Python language binding http://www.language-binding.net/ |
