You have defined the options we have perfectly clear, now we're at "1", for most cases shouldn't be a problem. But for some it might be.
Only one point, if you pass a string where an int should be, SWIG will launch an exception back to python, and python will tell the user. The only (known) case is int == enum. Greetings! :) 2012/8/9 Lorenzo Marcantonio <[email protected]> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:00:32AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > > If that contract needs to be renegotiated, then lets begin the process > of renegotiation, > > rather than starting immediately into a breach of contract. I for one > want the ugliness > > out of the C++ code. > > I agree that boundary checking for everything that is usually 'granted' > by the C++ would be a lot of 'spurious' assert/exception throwing. > That's why I've migrated some types (for example layer number and layer > masks) at least to enum in my branch, to get stricter type checking. > Which is exactly the *opposite* languages like python do. > > For me this is a classical impedance mismatch case... I see 3 alternatives: > - Trust people to always pass the right stuff to python (right, yeah) > > - Convive with parameter checking; that's the bread and butter of Eiffel > and program-by-contract programmers... I find it a little distracting > (you risk having more parameters checking than actual code!) but > that's the core of 'defensive programming', at least you gain > extensive checking for all the exposed interfaces. > > - Implement a facade adapter in python, ie an intermediate class which > checks stuff and then call the 'low level' routines... that's what > many common lisps and even HP RPL calculators do:P I heard that most > of the javabeans stuff is for this kind of interfacing, too. > Of course there's a performance price, and you have to keep updated > the facade classes, but at least you can optimally abstract for the > target (a stupid example: instead of getting an int for a layer, get > a string and look it up before calling the C++ code). > > An that's why in distributed system usually is a *bad idea* to expose > directly the internal interface... electronically is the same as putting > out the MCU pins without ESD protection (seen that too many times, many > times redesigned almost only for fix these issues...) > > Scripting can't simply be *grafted on* in a robust why IMHO > > -- > Lorenzo Marcantonio > Logos Srl > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo http://www.nbee.es +34 636 52 25 69 skype: ajoajoajo
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
