On 08/26/2011 04:09 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Thu Aug 25 2011, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> this is an interesting idea. There has been lots of general (dare I
>> say generic ?) discussion concerning process improvements (which
>> unfortunately most of the time diverted into tool discus
On 08/26/2011 08:21 PM, Jim Bosch wrote:
> On 08/26/2011 04:47 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>> The top of my list is improved interface to numpy. I know there is
>> work going
>> on in the form of ndarray, which seems promising.
>
> I'm still hesitant to consider ndarray part of Boost.Python; it's
> rea
on Fri Aug 26 2011, Jim Bosch wrote:
> In the interest of keeping this discussion easy-to-follow, I'm going
> to reply to Dave's email twice, with new subjects - I'll stick to
> questions about logistics in this email, and talk about features and
> scope in another.
>
> In summary, I'm getting t
on Fri Aug 26 2011, Jim Bosch wrote:
> On 08/26/2011 01:09 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> Well, speaking for myself, mostly time. I'd be inclined to do a rewrite
>> along the lines of the langbinding ideas if I had time.
>>
>
> I had only been vaguely aware of langbinding until I followed up on
On 08/27/2011 04:40 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> Hmm. I'm guessing the global type registry would still be the
>> default, and per-module registries would override these when
>> available? It sounds like Stefan has a clear use case in mind, and
>> I'd be curious to know what it is.
> Me too.
I be
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Jim Bosch wrote:
> I am aware of Py++ and the extensions associated with it, and some of that
> could definitely go into Boost.Python proper (and I think I've heard Roman
> state that he wouldn't have a problem with someone else doing the work to
> make it so, and
