[C++-sig] bpl_utils update

[David Abrahams]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk at yahoo.com>
To: <c++-sig at python.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [C++-sig] bpl_utils update


> --- David Abrahams <dave at boost-consulting.com> wrote:
> > Ralf, this stuff looks totally cool and super-useful! Can we put it in
the
> > library?
>
> Yes.

...ccccoool....

> > Also, do you have any docs for it?
>
> No.
>
> > I'd really like to see those to get a better feel for it.
>
> Realistically, I will not be able to work on this before September (due
to
> travel).

Fine.

> More realistically, it might take even longer unless a miracle
> happens. If you want, we could approach this incrementally: you establish
the
> slot in the doc tree (like the caption and the first sentence of the
intro), I
> fill in a little, you rework it a bit, I rework it a bit, etc. That would
> probably help a lot in getting it done sooner rather than later, and cut
down
> significantly on the time-consuming need for writing lengthy e-mail
messages.

That's a fine approach for the tutorial section (once I've started it ;-))

> We could start this way with the code: 1. you copy the relevant fragments
from
> the files where you think they should go (to boost cvs). 2. tell me where
they
> are and I'll fix them up so they get build with bjam, and I'll turn the
> assertion based tests into doctests. 3. go through and fix the code up as
you
> see fit (be as intrusive as you find necessary); tell me when you are
done and
> I see if I can still use it in our package. etc.

Okay, sounds great. However, we also need reference documentation of the
type that's already in CVS. To write that, we need to at least decide on
the filenames.

> To get things off the ground, I'd suggest to limit ourselves initially to
> "measurable" sequences (that's what the code is doing now; checks
should/could
> be added).

I'm not sure that checking is possible, at least not today. And Guido seems
rather hostile to the idea of making it possible, though I might be
misinterpreting him. See
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/search?query=Single-+vs.+Multi-pass+iterab
ility&type=Archive_python-dev
for details.

>  /Later/, when we hopefully have boost::python::sequence and
> boost::python::iter(ator) we can adjust the "to STL container" converters
to
> deal with both.

That sounds great to me.

-Dave