Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Bill Bedford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:44:34 +0100, Thomas Paviot wrote: > I apologize, I was completely wrong : python27 (and 31) are available within > fink, as well as PyQt4-X11 for python 2.7. You now have two solutions! Fink is fine if you just want to run unix apps, but if you are in to using python to bui

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Joel Putnam
yeah the old 2.4 version was sorta a mess in regards On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Paviot wrote: > thanks for this information. Don't know much about Blender, I never managed > to get something done with this program! > > 2011/1/21 Joel Putnam > > here is a post about Blender 2.5x and

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Joel Putnam
Thomas, In your opinion would compiling pythonOCC against 3.1 give me the opportunity to import it as a module into Blender and access the OCC functions? My plan of attack was to get it to import and start by writing simple exporters to the various cad formats offered by OCC. It is not necessarily

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Thomas Paviot
thanks for this information. Don't know much about Blender, I never managed to get something done with this program! 2011/1/21 Joel Putnam > here is a post about Blender 2.5x and Python 3.1. The blender team bundles > python 3.1 directly into the blender app. They are also in the process of > co

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Joel Putnam
here is a post about Blender 2.5x and Python 3.1. The blender team bundles python 3.1 directly into the blender app. They are also in the process of completing a new BREP kernel that will allow for among other things ngon sided faces within a mesh. This is one of the major attractions for me as I a

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Bill Bedford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:10:20 +0100, Thomas Paviot wrote: > Did you try to get pythonocc compile with 2.7? Your feedback would be very > interesting. > PythonOCC compiled OK. The show stopper was Qt-X11. I just couldn't see how to compile it again a framework Python 2.7. -- Bill Bedford "Man

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Thomas Paviot
2011/1/21 Bill Bedford > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:15:48 +0100, Thomas Paviot wrote: > > May be a small step to 2.7 would be better in > > a short term. What do you think about it? > > > > 2.7 is the current version. 2.6 is depreciated. I use to work with a MacBookPro (python 2.5 and 2.6 installed

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Bill Bedford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:15:48 +0100, Thomas Paviot wrote: > May be a small step to 2.7 would be better in > a short term. What do you think about it? > 2.7 is the current version. 2.6 is depreciated. As it is I can't install PythonOCC on my Mac because of incompatibles between the version of pyt

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Thomas Paviot
Yes, that's what I noticed : - moving from 2.x to 3.x needs an overall refactoring of the python code, since there are many differences (and no backward compatibility with 2.x code) ; - furthermore, a lot of famous and useful python libraries did not move to 3.x yet. So a move to 3.x would not be

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-21 Thread Sébastien Ramage
Hi all ! Be careful, a port to python 3.x will break the compatibility of wxPython since wxPython is not yet ready for Python 3.x Sébastien Le 21/01/2011 00:30, Joel Putnam a écrit : Thomas Would this be of any help? http://docs.python.org/library/2to3.html I am not much of a programmer

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-20 Thread Joel Putnam
Thomas Would this be of any help? http://docs.python.org/library/2to3.html I am not much of a programmer but I am willing to poke away at this over the next few months. Joel On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Thomas Paviot wrote: > Joel, > > The move to python 3 is not planned yet. Although S

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-20 Thread Thomas Paviot
Joel, The move to python 3 is not planned yet. Although SWIG is able to deal with python3k, the python code we wrote would need a major refactoring (more certainly a 'port' to python3), unless there is some kind of script that can automate the move from 2.x to 3k. Thomas 2011/1/20 Joel Putnam

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-20 Thread Joel Putnam
Thomas, yes py2.6 is default but I have installed 3.1 as well. The current Blender 2.56 is build on python 3.1 (packaged internally) I have managed to use the previous version and imported FreeCAD and pythonOCC. I do not currently work with the previous version of blender and as the jump from 2.4

Re: [Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-20 Thread Thomas Paviot
Hi Joel, pythonOCC has been successfully tested for py2.5 and 2.6. I have no hear about any 2.7 attempt. pythonOCC is not compliant with 3.1 changes from the 2.x series. I also use to work with Ubuntu 10.04, with the default python2.6. I didn't know Blender requires 3.1 to be installed. If you ca

[Pythonocc-users] Python 3.1

2011-01-20 Thread Joel Putnam
Hi, I would very much like to build PythonOCC with python 3.1 and have the ability to import it into blender as a way to allow conversion to cad formats other than those available in blender. I am using Ubuntu 10.4, with python 3.1 installed. Is there any instructions out that would aid in accompl