On 11/07/13 20:53, John Ehresman wrote: > On 7/11/13 11:40 AM, Fabien Castan wrote: >> >Has someone started some development or test for Qt5 support? >> >... >> >I don’t know what is the difficulty to switch to Qt5. There is always a >> >discussion about improving the binding tool with the binding of Qt5. Are >> >these improvements really needed for Qt5 support? > We talked about this at the sprint and decided to look at alternative > binding tools in conjunction with supporting Qt5. The goal will be a > set of bindings that the developers who are currently supporting PySide > can more easily support and maintain. None of us were involved with the > development of shiboken and we would like to look at alternatives. > > That said, developer could begin looking at the changes required by Qt > 5. PySide is developed and maintained by the community and well thought > out patches and other changes to support Qt 5 would likely be accepted.
I've actually been thinking about this. I naively thought that most of the effort was in the API extraction, but having read the excellent blog post that John pointed me to previously ( http://setanta.wordpress.com/binding-c/ ), I'm very much conscious of the other aspects. It struck me that libshiboken could still be a very useful tool in any future binding efforts, providing tools to alleviate much of the C++ difficulties. I'm sure it could be used with no end of alternative options (I've been thinking about it in the context of Cython bindings). Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
