> I know a lot has been written on this thread, but I'd like to go back to > the start since I may have been part of the source of the impression > that it was important to rewrite shiboken. What I said or meant to say > is that it would be nice to move parts of the code generator to Python > to make it easier to work with, but I did not mean to imply that it's > impossible to work with as it is. I have gone into the C++ code and > made changes and it's not that different from other code generators I > have worked with. > Ok, I could understand that.
I'm not enthusiastic about a rewrite using swig; it seems to be a lot of > work for questionable benefits. The main benefit could be to get a bigger community and concentrate efforts on the binding rules, instead of working on a binding tool. I think much of the work with PySide is > writing a Python binding given the specifics of how Qt works so it's > less about using a semi-generic tool such as swiq or shiboken and more > about how Qt object lifetime works. > Yes, but users also need to bind their own widgets... And your widgets use your core objects... so you need to use the same binding tool everywhere. A generic binding tool could help for that. I have not looked at Qt5 because the application I work on is likely to > use Qt4 for the foreseeable future. Does anyone on this list know what > has changed and how much work the bindings are likely to need? > * changed how the project is splitted * a rewrite of signal/slot with objects... which should be easier to bind * function signatures... * QDeclarative classes have been renamed * ... http://www.kdab.com/porting-from-qt-4-to-qt-5 PySide does need to transition into more of a community maintained > project because the small group of developers who wrote it initially > have gone on to other things (I think; my apologies if I'm wrong here). We do need developers who are comfortable working with C++ just because > Qt is a C++ library, but we also need a more useful bug tracking system > and better documentation. My approach to helping out has been to do > what I can to figure out how things work, to run code in a C++ debugger > to find and fix bugs, and to contribute changes back. I think the more > developers who can help out, the better. > Yes, that's exactly my point. How to get a bigger community? About binaries sizes: In Release: QtCore.pyd - shiboken: 2 200 Ko - sip: 2 103 Ko - swig: 6 118 Ko QtGui.pyd - shiboken: 8 468 Ko - sip: 7 500 Ko - swig: 25 428 Ko In Debug: QtCore_d.pyd - shiboken: 5 927 Ko - swig: 10 325 Ko QtGui_d.pyd - shiboken: 26 825 Ko - swig: 44 148 Ko For people who see this email without context, these pyd use different rules... so it cannot be seen as a global evaluation of each binding tool. I just asked to swig guys: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CAJQWia4HAj8v_DSgT4PCHxz%2BzKUExGGDH%3DxF1kcKK9bv1980%3DA%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=swig-devel Regards, Fabien
_______________________________________________ PySide mailing list PySide@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
