This is great, I will try this, but I'm afraid about the size,
because my main problem with boost.python is the library size compared
to others c++ python bindings, my current library has 16 MB compared
to 5 MB from SIP, and in my bindings I have a lot of overload
functions and this solution can p
Dane Springmeyer writes:
> Troy,
>
> Incidentally, do you know the proper way (or is there a proper way?)
> to support None type keyword arguments?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dane
>
Could you elaborate? What're you trying to do?
-t
___
Cplusplus-sig mailin
Gustavo Carneiro writes:
> Don't you think that when these overloading problems become an issue it is a
> sign of a poorly designed API?
In this case the intention is to fix bugs in boost.python. The broken
example we've been working with is where a parameter is bool in one
overload and int in
Am Freitag, 18. Dezember 2009 16:08:24 schrieb Gustavo Carneiro:
> Don't you think that when these overloading problems become an issue it is
> a sign of a poorly designed API? I mean, if overloaded functions
> parameters are not completely different in type or number, then maybe they
> are alread
When it's ready, I'd like to try it on my code collection (see that at least
nothing breaks).
___
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
Neal Becker writes:
> I am concerned that this doesn't introduce too much overhead for the common
> case where there is no ambiguity. I suppose this has been optimized?
>
For the following module:
int f(int x, int y, int z) { return x*100 + y*10 + z; }
BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(m) { def("f", &f
Don't you think that when these overloading problems become an issue it is a
sign of a poorly designed API? I mean, if overloaded functions parameters
are not completely different in type or number, then maybe they are already
too confusing to use and should not be overloaded in the first place?..
I am concerned that this doesn't introduce too much overhead for the common
case where there is no ambiguity. I suppose this has been optimized?
___
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-s
Neal Becker writes:
> I assume overload resolution extends to scoring multiple arguments as well?
>
Sure. This is the reason that scores are optional. If any
single argument scorer returns optional() (meaning 'unsuitable'),
this stops evaluation and kills the score for the entire signature.
He
I assume overload resolution extends to scoring multiple arguments as well?
___
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
Troy,
Incidentally, do you know the proper way (or is there a proper way?)
to support None type keyword arguments?
Cheers,
Dane
On Dec 17, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Dane Springmeyer wrote:
Troy,
Really __impressive__ write-up and work on this. I'd definitely be
interested in build instructi
Troy,
Really __impressive__ write-up and work on this. I'd definitely be
interested in build instructions and your work getting into future
releases.
Cheers,
Dane
On Dec 17, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Troy D. Straszheim wrote:
Here's what I've got on overloading. This turned out to be a lot m
Here's what I've got on overloading. This turned out to be a lot more
work, and this mail much longer, than I'd hoped. Would appreciate a
readthrough and comments/questions, I've done about all I can do. First
a review of the problems, then a walkthrough of an implementation I have
that fixes t
13 matches
Mail list logo
