Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp@weitershausen.de> writes:
> cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What do I need to list for you to "buy" it? ;)
Oh, I just figured you could make the change and demonstrate its
goodness.
> As a python programmer, I expect a more or less good object oriented
> design. I would like to be able to subclass existing classes in order
> to add functionality. I don't want to deal with C datatypes,
> especially not structs and their accessor functions. This is what SWIG
> can for us already and it is just a command line switch away.
+1.
> IMO, the next step could be to hide all the low-level stuff
> (e.g. pools). It would be nice to have a Client class, a WorkingCopy
> class a Repository class and so on instead of the
> svn_<module>_<action> functions. This could be done entirely in Python
> (at least I think so) and I would be willing to help on that part.
+1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 8 23:47:26 2003