On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Matti Airas <[email protected]> wrote: > However, this being said, in a slightly longer term (maybe after half a year > or so - too early to make any commitments), we definitely see Smoke a valid > future path for PySide, as stubborn duplication of effort for no reason is > just plain dumb, after all. Having tuned the generator architecture modular > to facilitate the current transition, it should only get easier to change > engines mid-flight once again in the future. :-) So, if the technical merits > support it, the long term transition plan could be: Boost.Python -> CPython > (via Shiboken) -> Smoke.
Add to it either unladen-swallow or pypy :). Seriously, a Smoke based binding for pypy would be an interesting experiment, given that using any sort of Python/C (such as shiboken approach) is not possible. Regards, -- Anderson Lizardo OpenBossa Labs - INdT Manaus - Brazil _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
