Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-19 13:33:50

----- Original Message -----
From: <rwgk_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:44 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Python 2.2a1 & Boost.Python

> --- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> > I think it is somewhat important. It means Python 2.2 is breaking
> source
> > compatibility on some existing code and limiting the flexibility of
> > Boost.Python. It would be better if everything could be made to
> continue to
> > work.
> Apparently it is Guido's goal not to break existing code in 2.2
> (
> > While the ultimate goal of PEP 253 is to do away with
> > ExtensionClass, I believe that ExtensionClass should still
> > work in 2.2, breaking it in 2.3.
> What is the best way of communicating our findings to Guido?

I think a copy of your previous message would be fine.

> How would you describe the problem in two sentences?

How about in one sentence?
With versions earlier than 2.2, we were able to derive extension classes
from a mixture of built-in classes and extension classes, /even if the
built-in class was the first listed base/, but that no longer works:
  <code evidence>

> > On the other hand, perhaps it would be best if under Python 2.2,
> > Boost.Python classes were just subtypes of built-in classes.
> > That seems to
> > be the whole point of that PEP.
> Guido writes:
> > However, you can create mix-in classes by inheriting from "object".
> > This a new built-in, naming the featureless base type of all
> > built-in types under the new system.
> I am guessing that this is what we will have to use under
> Python 2.3.

I think it might be possible to extend Class rather than object. That would
certainly cut down on the size of the code needed for extension class
support in Boost.Python.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at