On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
>> Is it necessary to explicitly invoke the streambuf object from python?
>
> Yes. I could be different and in fact was different in the initial
> implementation (if you look back in the svn history). But there were
> a few subtle pro
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Michele De Stefano
wrote:
> So, as shown into the doxygen example, you have to program a wrapper
> like this one:
>
> foo_wrap(boost::python::object pyfile) {
>
> mds_utils::python::oFileObj fobj(py_file);
>
> foo(fobj);
> }
That's clever. I wonder ho
Hi everyone.
I'm trying to use Boost.Python to expose some of my C++ classes and I
encountered an odd behaviour of the to_python_indirect result converter for
intrusive_ptr with specific classes.
Here is the deal:
I'm using a component-based design for my classes, meaning an aggregation of
object
Michele De Stefano wrote:
there is a much easier way to treat a FILE* as a C++ stream. The easy
way is to use my open source library (mds-utils,
http://code.google.com/p/mds-utils/).
Elegant use of boost::iostreams if I may say so. I've been looking for
some usecases for some boost.python mo
Christopher Bruns wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Michele De Stefano
wrote:
So, as shown into the doxygen example, you have to program a wrapper
like this one:
foo_wrap(boost::python::object pyfile) {
mds_utils::python::oFileObj fobj(py_file);
foo(fobj);
}
That's clever
troy d. straszheim wrote:
as(&fn)
where T(U) means "convert the python object to C++ type U, then create a
temporary object T and use it to create result_of::type,
correction, add here "then pass that thing to fn"
> then
convert that type to R and return to python".
-t
__
> Now I am faced with wrapping a constructor that takes a
> "std::ostream&" as an argument. I don't know how to write a wrapper
> for a constructor in boost.python. I'm open to suggestions on this.
> For example:
>
> // C++ API
> struct Foo {
> Foo(ostream& os);
> };
>
> # desired python u
