Hi Earl, > > Do I understand correctly that you want to use the object essentially like
> > a dictionary, just with obj.key instead of obj["key"]? > > I consider this bad practice, since it isn't obvious to readers of your > > code. > > Yes, you make a good point here, and it has made me question the use > cases that I was considering. That said, this type of usage can > provide some elegant solutions to otherwise cumbersome ones, and I > admit, I can sometimes be a very lazy programmer. > > This raises the question of how, if object identity is not preserved, > one can explicitly associate data with objects in order to look up > said data later. Do I have to expose an ID manually on each class I > wrap? Yes, you will need some type of ID. In one situation I've used the memory address of the object, the pointee of the shared pointer cast to size_t. But this was just used to determine object identity, not to look up associated data. For that you'd have to worry about re-use of the old address for a new object. So to be safe I believe you'd have to go to UUIDs. Another tricky question is how you clean up your lookup table. I imagine you need some type of garbage collection... If you like to be lazy, just add a placeholder (boost::python::object or boost::any) for the associated data to the C++ object! Ralf _______________________________________________ Cplusplus-sig mailing list Cplusplus-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
