Oh, I assumed that boost::python::object did this already.
It does. Think of bp::handle<> as a low-level, bare-bones, smart
PyObject*. Think of bp::object as that, *plus* all the fancy c++ API
that maps to python API (like obj.attr("foo"), []-operator, ()-operator,
etc).
I believe bp::object holds a handle<> internally.
If not, is there any reason not to use
boost::python::handle<boost::python::object> everywhere instead of a
boost::python::object?
Don't do that. You can't do that. It won't compile. Use bp::object
everywhere unless you're convinced you have a good reason to do
otherwise. If you have a PyObject *p and you want a bp::object,
construct it via:
object(handle<>(p)) // when p's a new reference
object(handle<>(borrowed(p))) // when p's a borrowed reference
One of my main reasons for using boost::python instead of the C API is
to avoid worrying so much about the reference counting. For instance, I
don't want to explicitly increment the ref when returning a PyObject, or
remember whether I should take a ref when given a PyObject from various
functions.
Yup. Just use bp::object everywhere. I recommend you read through the
reference manual:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_38_0/libs/python/doc/v2/object.html
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_38_0/libs/python/doc/v2/handle.html
Also look at the tutorials and examples and tests in the boost.python
distribution.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
