Remy Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:10:19 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Remy Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I have looked at Boost.Python, and it is very similar to what I had in >> > mind. Would it be possible to make Boost.Python more general to describe >> > C++ class information for runtime use, and have Boost.Python be a >> > subset? >> >> ?? There's no way that Boost.Python could be a subset of the facility >> we're talking about. It does way, way more than casting around an >> inheritance hierarchy. IOW, it's already way more general. > > This is not what I meant. The word "subset" was badly chosen. Sorry > for the confusion.
OK > As I understand, Boost.Python features a class description and > object management framework, Not sure what you mean by "object management", but OK... > which allows to describe the type of a class, its inheritance, the > members it contains, and to instantiate, access and modify objects > of these classes. Well, yeah, but from Python. > This can be called an "introspection and object management > facility", can't it? Sort of. A big part of what it does is concerned with exposing C++ functions to Python. > That was the goal of the library I am trying to develop. I'm trying to imagine what you have in mind. How could this library be used? Why would one use your library vs., for example, Boost.Python? > Looking at Boost.Python, I saw that much (if not all) I needed was > already there, and much more. So my question was: could the > "introspection and object management" parts be separated from the > Python-specific code? I'm not sure which parts you think those are. However, factoring out Python-independent functionality is probably a good idea in general, and has been discussed a few times on this list. One obvious reason to do so would be to build new back-ends for different languages. >> > I don't have a lot of time on my hands, but if you think this would >> > be a good idea, I would love to give it a try (except that I'm a >> > little scared by Boost.Python's complexity, and I don't know Python >> > (yet)). >> >> I don't understand. The stuff in inheritance.cpp doesn't touch Python >> at all. It's pure C++. > > I haven't yet looked at inheritance.cpp, but your comment confirms > that there is some very generic, not Python-dependent, code in > Boost.Python Yes. > that provides the functionality needed for an introspection > framework. I'm not as sure about that part. I'd have to see what you're talking about first. -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost