Hi Shaheed! The year is nearing its end, and I wonder if there has been any progress and/or if you people need help with the bindings!
I’d really like to revive my IPython console in Kate :D Best, Philipp Shaheed Haque <srha...@theiet.org> schrieb am Sa., 13. Jan. 2018 um 19:06 Uhr: > Thanks to some upstream fixes, I have the cppyy-based bindings for KF5 and > also Qt5 (see below) showing signs of life. Notes: > > > 1. The packaging has advanced to the point where I think ECM-based > framework-by-framework bindings are a real possibility, with both Py2 and > Py3. AFAICS, this addresses the main feedback received to date. > 2. With reference to the remark about tracking dependencies between > frameworks, apologies for the delayed response as I somehow missed the > email. I note that the dependencies currently in CMake often seem > incomplete. I'll bring that to the community separately. > 3. There is one issue still open upstream ( > > https://bitbucket.org/wlav/cppyy/issues/16/pragma-link-defined_in-seems-to-select). > However, I don't consider this to be a showstopper...we might even be able > to live with it as is. > 4. For me, the jury is still out on PyQt versus a new set of > cppyy-based Qt bindings. Clearly PyQt is solid and mature, but the > limitations really concern me (if anybody wants to know more, I'm happy to > discuss, but let's do that in another thread please). Now, given that there > are examples in the wild of interoperating cppyy/cling/ROOT with PyQt, I'm > going to sidestep this question but am playing with a cppyy-based approach. > At this point, all of Qt has basic cppyy-based bindings, and the next step > is to tackle things like finding a way to express the object > ownership/destruction rules in a more-or-less systematic way. > 5. On the P2/P3 question, I'm presently still committed to both P2 and > P3. I *have* had a couple of minor occasions where P3-only might have been > nice *for my code*, but if I do find an issue that tips the balance, or I > find some serious benefit *for the bindings*, I'll drop P2. One possible > such benefit would be if I can see a sane way to address PEP484 type hints. > > To get here, I had to build a subset of the tooling I previously had > developed for the SIP-based approach. The big difference is the absence of > any need to support customisation of the generated bindings. I am hopeful > that in the worst case, there might be some minimal customisation (known as > Pythonisations in cppyy parlance) such as for #4 above, but nothing like > the scale needed for SIP. > > The core tooling is not specific to KF5 or KDE or Qt5, and is developed in > upstream cppyy over on bitbucket.org. The core tooling is built around > CMake, notably for the generation phase and the C++ library build. > > The PoC extends the core tooling with Pythonic packaging and installation > using pip/wheels, also from CMake. As before I would look for help to get > an ECM equivalent, possibly based on the same approach but perhaps > including CI and distribution via PyPi. > > Finally, now would be a good time for anybody else who wants to get > involved to step up, especially as a new job limits my free time. > > Thanks, Shaheed > > P.S. Not to stoke the the P2/P3 wars unnecessarily, but while I know that > upstream Clang just added P3 support in the clang 5.0 release, current > Ubuntu only packages it for 2.7.14. So I won't be moving yet... > > On 5 November 2017 at 13:23, Boudewijn Rempt <b...@valdyas.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Chris Burel wrote: >> >> > I think this is a remarkably short sighted statement. It assumes that >> people that would use these bindings have no existing Python codebase at >> all, and can afford to start a brand new project. The reality is much >> different. >> > >> > Let's take a specific example. I have 6 years experience writing Python >> for the visual effects industry. We have a 10 year old Python 2 codebase. >> We also use an application from Autodesk called Maya. It has been a Qt 4 >> application with Python 2 embedded since 2012. In 2016 they jumped to qt 5 >> and pyside2. Now Autodesk knows that companies have built large codebase >> around their product that requires Python 2. What would've happened if >> pyside2 did not support Python 2.7? They'd be stuck either forcing all >> their customers to move to Python 3 and risk people not wanting the new >> version of the software, or they'd be prevented from moving to Qt 5. >> > >> >> You will have to switch to Python 3 by 2019, since that's what the VFX >> Reference Platform says. If you haven't started on the migration yet, >> you're very late. And the VFX Refernece Platform is basically Autodesk >> telling the rest of the industry what to use, including their weird >> patchset for Qt... >> >> > So no, Python 2 is not dead. Not by a long shot. >> >> For VFX, it will be dead in 2019. See http://www.vfxplatform.com/ >> >> >> -- >> Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org >> > >