On 14-Mar-03 Frederick Polgardy Jr wrote: > Well, whereas SIP looks at SIP files (a stone's throw from the > C++ header file) and generates C++ bindings, I could imagine it > wouldn't be *extremely* painful to write a utility like SIP to > generate Boost code from the headers, or a slightly modified > version thereof, instead. Not saying I'm going to write it > myself :), but the point was only that the limitation > doesn't lie with Boost itself.
Not having looked at Boost lately I'm not sure how difficult it would be, but it's probably doable. I guess my point was that sip already does this and Boost doesn't. > The bigger issue re: Qt/KDE is that I have no idea how you'd > handle the signal/slot mechanism without having preknowledge > about it, like SIP does. Again I'm not familiar enough with Boost to be certain, but it seems that Boost sits "on top of" the C++ code while sip calls into the C++ code - so, for example, Boost can handle templates more easily than sip can. Signal/slot handling might be easier too since at the C++ level Qt already knows how to do it - it might be just another method call to Boost. It seems to me the biggest difference though is that sip by design handles a comprehensive set of bindings over a number of versions very well, while Boost is designed more to add a Python feature to your C++ code. sip excels at PyQt and PyKDE, but for a lot of applications sip is overkill and Boost is probably more suitable. Jim _______________________________________________ PyKDE mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mats.gmd.de/mailman/listinfo/pykde