Re: [pygccxml-development] [FT] small issue

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

On 9/25/06, Matthias Baas <ba...@ir...> wrote:

> Before, you said I'm violating the design by adding the
> get_required_headers() method, now you say the design doesn't specify a
> particular way how to obtain header files and I can do it as I want.
> Pardon me, but this sounds like a contradiction to me.

No. User does not run it's code from the factory, you do. So you are
not free to do it
as you want.

> Besides that, I regard it as a design flaw that the API doesn't handle
> this properly and that I have to introduce dependencies among seemingly
> unrelated locations in my code.

This is already built-in in C++ language:

#include <iostream>
//200 lines bellow
using namespace std;
//300 lines below
cout << "x";
//100 lines below
cout << y;

>In my opinion, this makes maintenance more difficult.

I don't think so.

> I would have preferred a truly object-oriented/modular
> solution where all "information" can be kept in one place and where an
> object can encapsulate all its implementation details.

You are welcome:
    1. to propose one.
    2. to write a constructive critic

I am pretty happy with Py++ design.

> >> And where do the decl_wrapper classes come into play here?
> >
> > decl_wrapper does not come into play here.
>
> Sorry, but that's again a contradiction to what you said above ("all
> this information creator_t takes from decl_wrappers classes.". It's
> still quoted above).

creator_t takes all information from the decl_wrappers classes. User
that externally
modifies the tree not. I don't see the contradiction.

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