On 27.08.2012, 22:50:43 Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:11:50 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
>> On 26.08.2012, 18:15:55 Phil Thompson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:55:47 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
On 15.08.2012, 11:05:42 Phil Thompson wrote:
> I could change sip
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:11:50 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
> On 26.08.2012, 18:15:55 Phil Thompson wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:55:47 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
>>> On 15.08.2012, 11:05:42 Phil Thompson wrote:
I could change sipTransferTo() to do this if the owner was Py_None.
A
On 26.08.2012, 18:15:55 Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:55:47 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
>> On 15.08.2012, 11:05:42 Phil Thompson wrote:
>>> I could change sipTransferTo() to do this if the owner was Py_None. At
>>> the
>>> moment this is undocumented behaviour. Would this be s
On 15.08.2012, 18:15:55 Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:55:47 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
>> On 15.08.2012, 11:05:42 Phil Thompson wrote:
>>> I could change sipTransferTo() to do this if the owner was Py_None. At
>>> the
>>> moment this is undocumented behaviour. Would this be s
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:55:47 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
> On 15.08.2012, 11:05:42 Phil Thompson wrote:
>> I could change sipTransferTo() to do this if the owner was Py_None. At
>> the
>> moment this is undocumented behaviour. Would this be sufficient?
>
> I believe so.
Done in hg.
Phil
__
On 15.08.2012, 11:05:42 Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:47:51 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
>> Thanks for the answer. However, it appears I've not made myself
>> clear enough.
>> I don't want the C++ wrapper to be owned by Python; surely, I
>> can achieve that with "sipTransferTo"
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:47:51 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
> Thanks for the answer. However, it appears I've not made myself
> clear enough.
> I don't want the C++ wrapper to be owned by Python; surely, I
> can achieve that with "sipTransferTo". But nothing is done about the
> Python part. When
Thanks for the answer. However, it appears I've not made myself
clear enough.
I don't want the C++ wrapper to be owned by Python; surely, I
can achieve that with "sipTransferTo". But nothing is done about the
Python part. When I delete the wrapper in C++, the Python part it wraps
stays alive, becau
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:07:07 +0200, mathias.b...@gmx.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a C++ class "Project", which I expose to Python
> via sip.
> In Python, I sub-class:
>
> class Derived(Project):
> ...
>
> In addition, there is a Python factory function which creates an
> instance of "Derived
Hi,
I have a C++ class "Project", which I expose to Python
via sip.
In Python, I sub-class:
class Derived(Project):
...
In addition, there is a Python factory function which creates an
instance of "Derived" and returns it:
def f():
return Derived(...)
I call this function from within
10 matches
Mail list logo
