On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Phillip Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 27, 2:45 pm, Bruce Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Phillip Nguyen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > On Apr 24, 9:59 pm, Leonardo Santagada <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Any news on this? How about merging it back in pyglet trunk? >> >> > The ubiquitous send_message() weirdness that I am using in the cocoa- >> > ctypes clone seems like it would not be very maintainable to me, so I >> > don't think it would be a good idea to merge it into the trunk as it >> > is. I could be wrong though. >> >> I think keeping it in a separate branch causes definite harm and not >> much good, and I think the question of when to merge it is independent >> from the question of whether all the bugs have been fixed (given that >> merging it won't affect systems that run the other platforms, and that >> all systems that can use Carbon will still do so by default). This is >> why I'm in favor of merging it back into the trunk as soon as >> possible, regardless of bug status. > > Just to make sure that we're all on the same page, because I think my > previous post may have not been clear, I *did* already merge the > PyObjC-based Cocoa port of Pyglet into the trunk back in March. It's > fully functional. The only catch is that you have to have PyObjC 2.3 > installed for it to work properly, and it seems that several people > have run into problems getting PyObjC 2.3 installed.
I see -- thanks for the clarification. If you announced that merge at the time, I missed it or misunderstood it. > > The ctypes-based Cocoa port of Pyglet that I hacked together and put > up as a clone (I assumed this is what Leonardo was asking about) also > is fully functional without requiring PyObjC at all, but the code > looks like a mess to me. If you're suggesting that we should merge > this into the trunk, replacing the PyObjC-based code, then I'm open to > the idea. But I would like to hear some opinions from others first, > especially after they have reviewed the ctypes-based code. No, I was definitely not suggesting that. I have not examined or tried either what you already merged, or this clone, nor have I tried to install PyObjC 2.3, so I have no opinion on that except that "messy is much worse than clean". (Now that I found out you merged a cocoa port, I'll try it when I have time, but maybe not soon.) > > Is the PyObjC dependency that big of a problem? My impression from > PyWeek is that there aren't that many people using the 1.2dev version > of Pyglet anyway for it to really matter . . . actually I think it > might be worthwhile to have a discussion in another thread about > current Pyglet development. It would be worthwhile. (It would also be good to find a way to edit the group or project homepage to make sure it has up to date project status. I haven't checked it recently, but when last I did it was far out of date (e.g. referring to svn rather than hg, and not mentioning any branches at all).) - Bruce Smith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en.
