Cool! Sorry, I don't have the expertise to help with the boost.build
aspect, but I did have some questions and comments regarding the feature.
Does this add a dependency of boost.python on numpy? We'd love to be
able to continue use boost.python without a numpy dependency. We did a
nontrivi
Hi Andy,
We do something very similar to what you describe, except we use doxygen
(www.doxygen.org) to output XML files that we use to generate __doc__
strings for our python bindings. We're primarily a linux shop.
I don't know how hard it would be to switch to doxygen, maybe it can
deal wi
On 8/17/2015 11:39 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
For the case with default implementation, the tutorial gives this wrapper:
struct BaseWrap : Base, bpl::wrapper
{
virtual std::string func() const
{
if (bpl::override f = this->get_override("func"))
return f();
e
On 8/13/2015 4:26 AM, MM wrote:
What I want to express is:
The t returned by the python function should refer to object T held in
c++ memory, and for instance
del t
should not delete the actual T object in c++ memory
Should I still use "return_internal_reference" ?
You can use reference_ex
On 5/29/2015 7:28 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Python's copy module allows for objects to be copied. The protocol for
this will look up special method __copy__. It seems to me that this
would trivially work for C++ objects providing a copy-constructor.
However, the copy-constructor isn't automatical
On 12/26/14 2:12 AM, ilias wrote:
It's not a bug, it's as designed. Boost.python tries function overloads
in reverse registration order and picks the first one that works, in the
sense that all the arguments convert.
Is that behavior specified somewhere in the documentation?
I'm not sure it
On 12/19/14 5:34 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
But if I declare the function f in reversed order:
BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(test)
{
def("f", f_double);
def("f", f_int);
}
I will see "invoked f(int n = 5)" when I call f(5) and "invoked f(double d =
3.14)" when I call f(3.14) as it has to be. Why doe
On 11/17/14 4:17 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
While the issue looks clear (and the patch good), can you attach a test
case that would allow me to reproduce the issue (and observe the fix
with the patch applied) ?
Minimal test cases always accelerate the processing of reported issues. :-)
Also plea
On 11/17/2014 4:17 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
On 17/11/14 06:54 PM, Alex Mohr wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:01 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
(Specifically: I'd be happy to help fix issues with the Boost.Python
code itself, but I don't feel competent with bjam / Boost.Build, and my
knowledge
On 11/17/2014 2:01 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
(Specifically: I'd be happy to help fix issues with the Boost.Python
code itself, but I don't feel competent with bjam / Boost.Build, and my
knowledge of MSVC is almost non-existent, not to speak of the fact that
I have no computer near me running Wind
On 8/8/2013 2:28 AM, Alex Leach wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:06:24 +0100, Alex Mohr wrote:
Thanks for your response. I've responded to your comments in-line below.
After further investigation, I believe this can be fixed by simply
checking for None when we get 'kv'
Thanks for your response. I've responded to your comments in-line below.
After further investigation, I believe this can be fixed by simply
checking for None when we get 'kv' from f->m_arg_names while resolving
keywords. If we encounter None, that means the overload doesn't accept
a keyword
I'm hitting a repeatable segfault trying to upgrade our boost version.
I believe there may be a bug with overload resolution in the presence of
keyword arguments. Here's a minimal example that crashes for me.
// C++
#include
static void f1(int a0, int a1) { }
static void f2(int a0, int a1, i
On 10/26/2012 1:27 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
The entire issue disappears if you move your member function definitions
(including the constructor) from varbls.cpp to varbls.h.
Alternatively, explicitly instantiate in varbls.cpp.
template class _Variable;
Again, you might want to google "explic
On 10/26/2012 11:16 AM, Paul O. Seidon wrote:
would do that. Should I try
dont_care = _Variable();
in main.cpp? Looks a bit strange, but would force the compiler to generate
code for sure.
You either need to inline the ctor in the header or do an explicit
instantiation of _Variable somewhere
On 4/26/2010 1:22 AM, Austin Bingham wrote:
I feel like I'm missing something simple, but how do I catch
Boost.Python.ArgumentException? As far as I can tell, the Boost.Python
module is not something I can import explicitly, so I can't write
"catch Boost.Python.ArgumentException:". I can do somet
Renato Araujo wrote:
I had the same problem as you in my binding implementation, then I
solve the problem using this function:
//
// a generator with an execute() function which, given a source type
// and a pointer to an object of that type, returns its most-derived
// /reachable/ type identifi
Oh, I assumed that boost::python::object did this already.
It does. Think of bp::handle<> as a low-level, bare-bones, smart
PyObject*. Think of bp::object as that, *plus* all the fancy c++ API
that maps to python API (like obj.attr("foo"), []-operator, ()-operator,
etc).
I believe bp::obj
Murray Cumming wrote:
I can't find any definitive documentation that tells me how I should get
a boost::python::object to wrap an existing PyObject*. I guess that
there's a way to do it that uses an existing reference, and a way that
takes an extra reference.
You can construct a boost::python::
Override the python special methods __getattr__ or __getattribute__.
http://docs.python.org/reference/datamodel.html#attribute-access
Alex
Jérémie Delaitre wrote:
Hello,
I have a C++ class that use a custom property system.
This property system allows me to add and remove properties at runtim
I am aware that oprofile and valgrind exist.
Has anyone of you ever done profiling
a C or C++ extension with gprof?
Not me, but I have to say that valgrind's callgrind tool with
kcachegrind to view the results has been perhaps the best profiling
experience I've had on Linux. I've had good s
I would like to have the __hash__ not exist. These objects are mutable
and should NOT be used as keys. Is there a way to hide it? If I have
them throw NotImplemented will python do something sensible with that?
Python raises a TypeError for unhashable things:
>>> [1,2,3].__hash__()
Traceback (
The best I could find was object(borrowed(ptr)) for new references and
object(handle<>(ptr)) for borrowed pointers. I'm not sure if that is
accurate, but if so that deserves a nomination for a terrible
interface award.
The documentation isn't great, but the name 'borrowed' is a hint. Using
bor
23 matches
Mail list logo
