Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp@weitershausen.de> writes:
> Hello,
>
> why is the -noproxy flag passed to SWIG when building the python
> bindings? This forces SWIG not to build shadow classes for structs.
>
> I think that pointers and accessor functions are not something that
> python programmers want to get involved with, not even when they are
> using bindings to a C API. SWIG already has the feature of building
> classes which can even be subclassed to add new functionality. Why
> aren't we using that feature?
This has been asked before, and I don't remember the answer indicating
that there was any really intentional reason for this decision. If
removing the -noproxy make our bindings better, sell us on the idea,
and you can bet we won't object to implementing that improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 8 02:07:42 2003