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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

> 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)

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)

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)

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)

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, 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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 quite a while. It directly reads