... wasn't there also some python related work by Stefan? Or is that unrelated?
Greetings Dominik Am Mo., 5. Nov. 2018, 16:20 hat Shaheed Haque <srha...@theiet.org> geschrieben: > I'm afraid that there has been no progress as I am buried in "startup" > mode. I'm not sure when that might change. > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, 14:02 Philipp A. <flying-sh...@web.de wrote: > >> Hi Shaheed! >> >> The year is nearing its end, and I wonder if there has been any progress >> and/or if you people need help with the bindings! >> >> I’d really like to revive my IPython console in Kate :D >> >> Best, Philipp >> >> Shaheed Haque <srha...@theiet.org> schrieb am Sa., 13. Jan. 2018 um >> 19:06 Uhr: >> >>> Thanks to some upstream fixes, I have the cppyy-based bindings for KF5 >>> and also Qt5 (see below) showing signs of life. Notes: >>> >>> >>> 1. The packaging has advanced to the point where I think ECM-based >>> framework-by-framework bindings are a real possibility, with both Py2 and >>> Py3. AFAICS, this addresses the main feedback received to date. >>> 2. With reference to the remark about tracking dependencies between >>> frameworks, apologies for the delayed response as I somehow missed >>> the email. I note that the dependencies currently in CMake often >>> seem incomplete. I'll bring that to the community separately. >>> 3. There is one issue still open upstream ( >>> >>> https://bitbucket.org/wlav/cppyy/issues/16/pragma-link-defined_in-seems-to-select). >>> However, I don't consider this to be a showstopper...we might even be >>> able >>> to live with it as is. >>> 4. For me, the jury is still out on PyQt versus a new set of >>> cppyy-based Qt bindings. Clearly PyQt is solid and mature, but the >>> limitations really concern me (if anybody wants to know more, I'm happy >>> to >>> discuss, but let's do that in another thread please). Now, given that >>> there >>> are examples in the wild of interoperating cppyy/cling/ROOT with PyQt, >>> I'm >>> going to sidestep this question but am playing with a cppyy-based >>> approach. >>> At this point, all of Qt has basic cppyy-based bindings, and the next >>> step >>> is to tackle things like finding a way to express the object >>> ownership/destruction rules in a more-or-less systematic way. >>> 5. On the P2/P3 question, I'm presently still committed to both P2 >>> and P3. I *have* had a couple of minor occasions where P3-only might have >>> been nice *for my code*, but if I do find an issue that tips the balance, >>> or I find some serious benefit *for the bindings*, I'll drop P2. One >>> possible such benefit would be if I can see a sane way to address PEP484 >>> type hints. >>> >>> To get here, I had to build a subset of the tooling I previously had >>> developed for the SIP-based approach. The big difference is the absence of >>> any need to support customisation of the generated bindings. I am hopeful >>> that in the worst case, there might be some minimal customisation (known as >>> Pythonisations in cppyy parlance) such as for #4 above, but nothing like >>> the scale needed for SIP. >>> >>> The core tooling is not specific to KF5 or KDE or Qt5, and is developed >>> in upstream cppyy over on bitbucket.org. The core tooling is built >>> around CMake, notably for the generation phase and the C++ library build. >>> >>> The PoC extends the core tooling with Pythonic packaging and >>> installation using pip/wheels, also from CMake. As before I would look for >>> help to get an ECM equivalent, possibly based on the same approach but >>> perhaps including CI and distribution via PyPi. >>> >>> Finally, now would be a good time for anybody else who wants to get >>> involved to step up, especially as a new job limits my free time. >>> >>> Thanks, Shaheed >>> >>> P.S. Not to stoke the the P2/P3 wars unnecessarily, but while I know >>> that upstream Clang just added P3 support in the clang 5.0 release, current >>> Ubuntu only packages it for 2.7.14. So I won't be moving yet... >>> >>> On 5 November 2017 at 13:23, Boudewijn Rempt <b...@valdyas.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Chris Burel wrote: >>>> >>>> > I think this is a remarkably short sighted statement. It assumes that >>>> people that would use these bindings have no existing Python codebase at >>>> all, and can afford to start a brand new project. The reality is much >>>> different. >>>> > >>>> > Let's take a specific example. I have 6 years experience writing >>>> Python for the visual effects industry. We have a 10 year old Python 2 >>>> codebase. We also use an application from Autodesk called Maya. It has been >>>> a Qt 4 application with Python 2 embedded since 2012. In 2016 they jumped >>>> to qt 5 and pyside2. Now Autodesk knows that companies have built large >>>> codebase around their product that requires Python 2. What would've >>>> happened if pyside2 did not support Python 2.7? They'd be stuck either >>>> forcing all their customers to move to Python 3 and risk people not wanting >>>> the new version of the software, or they'd be prevented from moving to Qt >>>> 5. >>>> > >>>> >>>> You will have to switch to Python 3 by 2019, since that's what the VFX >>>> Reference Platform says. If you haven't started on the migration yet, >>>> you're very late. And the VFX Refernece Platform is basically Autodesk >>>> telling the rest of the industry what to use, including their weird >>>> patchset for Qt... >>>> >>>> > So no, Python 2 is not dead. Not by a long shot. >>>> >>>> For VFX, it will be dead in 2019. See http://www.vfxplatform.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org >>>> >>> >>>
