On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Martin Landa <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/5/8 Glynn Clements <[email protected]>: > > [...] > >> Currently, those modules are named swig.grass, swig.vector, etc. That >> was done to avoid a collision over "import grass". But "swig" is a >> rather generic prefix to use. I had thought about changing it from >> "swig.*" to "grass.*", and renaming "grass" to e.g. "grass.script". >> >> The question is whether e.g. "grass.vector" should contain the >> functions from grass.py or the SWIG functions for the vector library. >> IOW, which one gets precedence? Or should we make them equal and just >> have grass.script.vector and grass.swig.vector? >> >> And should "swig" even be visible, or should it be e.g. >> "grass.lib.vector"? > > It seems to me 'lib' as better name then 'swig'. > > Done in > > r37345 > r37346 > r37347 > r37348
Before backporting, could it be possible to move out the include part into swig/include/ ? Here what Glynn suggested: On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Glynn Clements <[email protected]> wrote: > Markus Neteler wrote: >> in order to facilitate the creation of other bindings, I suggest to move the >> swig/python/*.i >> files into >> swig/include/ >> >> Then the various language wrappers could include from there. > > common.i, grass.i, my_typemaps.i and utils.i are language-specific, > but the rest could be moved. Markus _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
