boost::python, returning new PyObject references

[David Abrahams]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnaldur Gylfason" <arnaldur at decode.is>

> > What's the point of having different C++ types, then? You could just use
> > the generic object for everything. I suppose there would be a very minor
> > speed improvement if you know that an object is in fact a list rather
> > than some generic sequence, but I don't think too many people are
> > concerned about the speed of code operating at the C++/Python boundary.
>
> The C++ types export the corresponding C API parts:
> object - PyObject_*
> sequence - PySequence
> etc.
>
> I guess maybe sequence, mapping, number should then inherit from
> object_base not object.
> The proxy should then also inherit from object.
>
> Although a list does not support the __call__ interface we could have a
> user-defined class that supports both the sequence and __call__
interfaces.
>
> I am inclined to letting sequence, mapping etc. inherit from object_base
> but supporting more combinations of interfaces:
> object and sequence , object and mapping etc.
>
> What do you think?

I think your design is more complicated and less clean than it needs to be,
because either I have failed to communicate to you how I think it should go,
or you are ignoring my suggestions.

I keep trying to push you in the direction of writing a single generic
object class with /all/ of the capabilities that are accessible through
python's generic interface (number, sequence, mapping, attribute access,
call, buffer,...), and then using private non-virtual inheritance to provide
more-specialized sequence, number, etc. interfaces. Is this suggestion
unclear to you? Do you think there's something wrong with it? I'd really
like to know.

Thanks,
Dave