Re: [boost] Review: Python/C++ binding library

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-11 09:02:07

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Powell" <Gary.Powell_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>

> > One of us is completely nuts ;->. How can I move the test
> > (is_prefix(enablers[i].name + 2, name + 2)) outside the loop if it
depends
> > on the loop index, i?
> >
>   name += 2;
>    for()
> {
>    if (is_prefix(enablers[i].name + 2, name))
> }

I see now. I guess I should stop pussyfooting and either go for optimization
or clarity here, eh?

> > Naming details and boostification are still pending. Since the library
> > itself has yet to get a final name (What's your vote?) it would  be
> > premature to select namespaces, I think.
> >
> > >  If and when py_c++ becomes part of the standard, won't we have a
> > problem
> > > with the class names "String" and "Tuple" (I'm assuming that Jaakko
> > Jarvi's
> > > Tuple will also make the grade.)
> >
> > Not if they're properly namespace scoped ;->
> I'm of the school that is planning on all boost libraries becoming part of
> "std". I suppose that a c++ to python interface isn't as likely a
candidate
> as Tuple is for general inclusion but it would be nice to get the code
names
> so that it doesn't preclude it.

I'm of the school that hopes-to-whatever-higher-power-you-choose that std::
adopts some sub-namespaces as the standard library grows. Can you imagine
the Java library all in one big namespace?

> Re: Object
>   It one of those class names that is so overused to invite all future non
> use. It's name has become almost meaningless unless there is some other
bit
> of information attached. That's why I favor PyPtrObject 'cause that's what
> it is.

Sorry, I still appeal to the motivation above on this one.

> Re: Dict
>    Why abbreviate this? Code is read 5 or 6 times for every time its
> written. The few extra characters don't affect compile time or program
> speed. It's part of my personal goal of write what you mean, name them
what
> they are.

I completely agree. Abbrevs rub me the wrong way, 2 ;->

>   Again these are my opinions and can be freely disregarded.

selectively-regarding-ly y'rs,
dave