Date: 2001-06-13 11:59:10
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_m...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <edcjones_at_e...>
> > Is any further development planned for Boost.Python?
> The status right now:
> ... [ Ralf, how's that coming along? Do you need help?
> Probably you'd like me to at least write some documentation...
> should think seriously about solving the "returned reference
problem" at the
> same time, no?]
The last couple of weeks I had to focus on other pressing
things. This week we had a two-day workshop with collaborators
on our project. At that workshop I banked my life on Boost.Python.
I am pretty sure that a few of our collaborators will start using
it. This is, I have a very strong motivation to continue my quest
for getting Boost.Python onto the standards track.
> My work does not demand any Python right now, (and demands a lot of
> stuff), so enhancements are low on my list of priorities. I think
> some plans for enhancements, but I'll let him speak for himself.
Boost.Python pretty much does what we want. We are writing
code from scratch, so we can consider the requirements of
Boost.Python in our design (which I find not in general
A while ago I made a short effort to enhance the cross-module
support such that declare_base() can be used accross
modules. I did not persue this to the end because we do not
(yet) need that feature. If someone else needs it, I would
be happy to work on this together.
My colleague Nick Sauter added support for Python 2.1 rich
comparisons and we are using this successfully. However, this
still has to be merged into the CVS tree. My plan is to
do this after fixing the friend function problems.
In summary, yes, Boost.Python is moving. But the direction
is determined very much by the interests of the parties
involved. If you want things to happen fast, active
involvement in the development is the best policy.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk