On 08/26/2011 04:09 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Thu Aug 25 2011, Stefan Seefeld <stefan-AT-seefeld.name> wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> this is an interesting idea. There has been lots of general (dare I
>> say generic ?) discussion concerning process improvements (which
>> unfortunately most of the time diverted into tool discussions). Among
>> the fundamental issues is a modularization of boost. I think it would
>> be great if boost.python could follow through on its own, by becoming
>> a separate entity.
> Separate from Boost? I guess that's a possibility but I'm not sure I
> see the advantage.
Jim already followed up on that, and I fully agree with that. If things
can happen within Boost, all the better.
>> * A per-module type registry, to avoid conflicting converters in
>> multi-module projects.
> Interesting idea. How does sharing types across multiple modules work
> in that scenario?
That's a good question. I don't have an answer to that. In fact, the
idea of having per-module type registries grew out of discussions I had
with Troy quite a while ago, where we considered all the bad things that
could happen if multiple modules tried to export the same types. As
always: explicit is better than implicit.
>
>> - Some limited degree of priority-based overload matching. Not sure
>> how best to approach this one yet, though.
> +1
> This is a solved problem... just not in Boost.Python. Daniel Wallin
> worked it out for luabind and we were going to incorporate it into
> langbinding. Happy to discuss it further.
>
>
I'm happy to see some discussion on langbinding in this context. I also
agree with Jim's pragmatic approach to this he is proposing in another mail.
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
_______________________________________________
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
