On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Jim Bosch wrote:
>
> > On 01/27/2013 05:02 AM, Michael Wild wrote:
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> Is there a way to apply a CallPolicy to operator definitions? In
> >> particular, I'm interested in the inplace operators (+=, -=, *=, /= and
> >> friends).
> >>
> >> To give a bit more context: The library I'm trying to wrap exposes some
> >> static const objects. So far, I have been able to wrap modifying
> >> function by having a registration facility for these static const
> >> objects and a custom CallPolicy that raises an AttributError when one
> >> tries to modify one of the registered objects.
> >>
> >> One option I see is to directly define __iadd__ etc. instead of using
> >> the built-in convenience operators. However, I'm not sure whether that
> >> has unintended side-effects. I haven't completely understood the
> >> operators implementation in bp, but it looks fairly involved.
> >>
> >
> > I think directly implementing __iadd__ is probably your best bet. I
> don't
> > think there are any side-effects you need to worry about, but it would
> > probably be a lot of boilerplate. Do make sure you read up on how those
> > methods are supposed to be implemented in pure-Python as regards to
> handling
> > unexpected types, however, and make sure you follow the same rules in
> your C++
> > implementation.
> >
> > Jim
>
> I've always used e.g. __iadd__ rather than the convenience stuff. No
> problems.
>
>
Yeah, that's what I've been doing now.
___
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
