Gerrit Voss wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 06:29 -0500, Patrick Hartling wrote: >> Are there plans to make more use of Boost.Function in OpenSG 2? I see where >> some parts of the code use it now, but there are other parts >> (OSG::SceneFileHandler, for example) that use C function pointers. By >> replacing those with boost::function<T>() instantiations, existing >> user-level code will still compile, but we will be afforded much greater >> flexibility in what sort of callback can be passed in. The main reason that >> I ask, however, is that using Boost.Function would help PyOpenSG >> tremendously. With some proper finessing in the bindings code, it would be >> possible to have Python callables be passed in as callbacks. > > yes, it's somewhere on my 'still to cleanup' list.
Would you like help, or do you have specific plans that you want to execute yourself? > As we are talking of the python bindings I was recently looking at them, > is the cvs head suppose to build (including the gen_bindings.py part). > > I was just trying against the current 2.x head to see where changes are > needed. But I was running into errors which should have nothing to do > with the ptr switch, like wrong scoping (e.g. classes without OSG::) I compiled the head of the trunk yesterday against the OpenSG 2 "stable" field container pointer branch without problems on Fedora Core 6. I am surprised that there would be scoping problems. I don't know for sure, but that sounds like a bug in Py++ or pygccxml. -Patrick -- Patrick L. Hartling Senior Software Engineer, Priority 5 http://www.priority5.com/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
