Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

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 schrieb am Sa., 13. Jan. 2018 um 19:06 Uhr: > Thanks to some upstream

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Il giorno Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:54:40 +0100 Dominik Haumann ha scritto: > ... wasn't there also some python related work by Stefan? Or is that > unrelated? That involves only the existing bindings, this is completely different from an architectural viewpoint. -- Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

... wasn't there also some python related work by Stefan? Or is that unrelated? Greetings Dominik Am Mo., 5. Nov. 2018, 16:20 hat Shaheed Haque geschrieben: > I'm afraid that there has been no progress as I am buried in "startup" > mode. I'm not sure when that might change. > > On Mon, 5 Nov

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

I'm afraid that there has been no progress as I am buried in "startup" mode. I'm not sure when that might change. On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, 14:02 Philipp A. 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! > >

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Shaheed Haque wrote: > Thanks to some upstream fixes, I have the cppyy-based bindings for KF5 and > also Qt5 (see below) showing signs of life. Notes: Hi Shaheed, > > The packaging has advanced to the point where I think ECM-based >

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi Luca, On 15 January 2018 at 08:24, Luca Beltrame wrote: > Il giorno Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:05:45 + > Shaheed Haque ha scritto: > > Hello Shaheed, > > >1. The packaging has advanced to the point where I think ECM-based > >framework-by-framework

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

El dissabte, 13 de gener de 2018, a les 18:05:45 CET, Shaheed Haque va escriure: > Thanks to some upstream fixes, I have the cppyy-based bindings for KF5 and > also Qt5 (see below) showing signs of life. > Notes: This is awesome, i'm really happy we're in a point that framework-by-framework is

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Philipp A. wrote: > No, because you’re missing something here: There’s no KF5 bindings. So > every project that’ll use Shaheed’s new cool KF5 bindings will be a new > project. There is PyKDE4 that people will want to port their legacy programs from. Kevin Kofler

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi Shaheed, Chris, Shaheed Haque schrieb am Sa., 4. Nov. 2017 um 18:35 Uhr: > FWIW, I already tried that (types.ModuleType is itself a perfectly > subclassable class!) […] > > Now, none of that may be a limiting factor in the plan you seem to be > discussing, but it was part

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi, On Friday 2017-11-03 12:52, Philipp A. wrote: Am I missing something? Namespaces should be Python modules, not classes. If we can do represent them this way, the problem is solveable: https://packaging.python.org/guides/packaging-namespace-packages/ there are two different things that

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi Shaheed, Thank you so much for all your work! a framework-by-framework integration of the binding generation logic (as > previously pioneered by Steve) probably cannot work in general because > there are cases where multiple frameworks contribute to to the same C++ > namespace […] > > The

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi Shaheed, Shaheed Haque schrieb am Fr., 3. Nov. 2017 um 14:16 Uhr: > Philipp, > > - my overall understanding of this technique is that it may end up > being fragile, especially given the difference between P2 and P3. > Python 2? I’m sure we shouldn’t include into our

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 4:46 AM, Philipp A. wrote: > > Entirely new bindings lead to new applications being written using those > bindings. Writing applications in Python 2 is an immediate maintenance burden > and people only do it because of stubborn ideology or a complete

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi Shaheed, Thank you for the clarifications! My observation is that *nobody* is likely to help with that problem: the > framework owners did > nothing obvious to either keep PyKDE4 going (out of tree) or to help > Steve with my earlier SIP based efforts (in tree). > It's a bit sad, but not too

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi Wim! So now I have a (C++) namespace 'A' that bears no relationship to anything > to do with the file system or any type of Python packaging: it exists only > in memory for the duration of the python session. > Yeah, cool, so we just use a path hook and are ready to go right?

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

I have made an attempt to get roughly all the bindings I was previously attempting with SIP to be (a) generated and (b) built. As of now, we have: - Customisations with a diffstat that reads "21 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)". - All but 5-6 of the formal tier 1, 2 and 3

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Philipp, On 5 November 2017 at 14:48, Philipp A. wrote: > Hi Shaheed, Chris, > > Shaheed Haque schrieb am Sa., 4. Nov. 2017 um > 18:35 Uhr: > >> FWIW, I already tried that (types.ModuleType is itself a perfectly >> subclassable class!) […] >> >> Now,

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

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

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

There is a POC-quality implementation of the integration with KDE here: https://cgit.kde.org/pykde5.git/tree/?h=srhaque-cppyy-bindings=19a94fb3ae2b40a985913ed4e49400e02df56dc2 This contains examples of bindings for Akonadi and KDcraw. My next steps will be to do a few more, and then move on to

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Wim, Philipp, On 4 November 2017 at 16:45, Philipp A. wrote: > Hi Wim! > >> So now I have a (C++) namespace 'A' that bears no relationship to anything >> to do with the file system or any type of Python packaging: it exists only >> in memory for the duration of the python

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Il giorno Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:20:19 + Shaheed Haque ha scritto: > *nobody* is likely to help with that problem: the framework owners did > nothing obvious to either keep PyKDE4 going (out of tree) or to help > Steve with my earlier SIP based efforts (in tree). That's

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi Philipp, On 3 November 2017 at 14:09, Philipp A. wrote: > Hi Shaheed, > > Shaheed Haque schrieb am Fr., 3. Nov. 2017 um 14:16 > Uhr: >> >> Philipp, >> >> - my overall understanding of this technique is that it may end up >> being fragile, especially

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Philipp, On 3 November 2017 at 12:52, Philipp A. wrote: > Hi Shaheed, > > Thank you so much for all your work! > >> a framework-by-framework integration of the binding generation logic (as >> previously pioneered by Steve) probably cannot work in general because there >> are

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Il giorno Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:53:00 + Shaheed Haque ha scritto: Hello Shaheed, > Firstly, we have existence proofs in the form of PyQt and the PyKDE4 PyQt doesn't really fit the model. It's developed by one person, and with no source control access to anyone but the

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Albert, On 2 November 2017 at 21:43, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El dijous, 2 de novembre de 2017, a les 18:22:38 CET, Shaheed Haque va > escriure: >> A progress update... >> >> On 24 October 2017 at 13:05, Shaheed Haque wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I have a

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

El dijous, 2 de novembre de 2017, a les 18:22:38 CET, Shaheed Haque va escriure: > A progress update... > > On 24 October 2017 at 13:05, Shaheed Haque wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have a preliminary version of the Cppyy bindings generator CMake > > > > support available

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

A progress update... On 24 October 2017 at 13:05, Shaheed Haque wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a preliminary version of the Cppyy bindings generator CMake > support available here: > > >

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Hi all, I have a preliminary version of the Cppyy bindings generator CMake support available here: https://bitbucket.org/wlav/cppyy-backend/pull-requests/6/an-interim-experimental-version-of-a/diff There are some TODOs yet to be addressed, but I would appreciate feedback on how easy it

Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Shaheed Haque wrote: > As promised, here is an interim update on the investigation into the > use of cppyy-based bindings for KF5 (and more...) instead of SIP-based > bindings. > > The first thing is that the underlying technology of cppyy, > cling/ROOT, has been under development at CERN for