[cable] CableSwig: Python wrappers don't wrap public member data

[Charl P. Botha]

Steven Levitt wrote:
> CableSwig doesn't wrap public data members? To be succinct, that stinks. I
> have a specific need to wrap many C structures in Python, and hand-coding
> the SWIG interfaces is an onerous task. I was hoping CableSwig would do
> this more efficiently.

Are you sure that you're not exaggerating?  Personally I wouldn't use 
the words "onerous" and "writing SWIG interfaces" in the same sentence.

> I don't mean to sound ungrateful for the time and energy you and the ITK
> developers expend in making these tools publicly available, but this
> (mis)feature, and any other variations from standard SWIG behavior are
> things that that the ITK developers should have documented and made clear.
> I might have saved all the time I spent just trying to get CableSwig to
> build if I had known this in advance.

Maybe you could set an example by writing detailed documentation for all 
that open source that you've worked so hard on creating and making 
available to the public. :)

> I think that the question of whether to wrap public data members ought to
> be a matter of the policy of a particular project. CableSwig should remain
> neutral on the matter, and offer the feature as an option.

You have two options:
1. *Politely* ask for advice on how you could go about to make these 
changes, then make them, test your work and submit patches.
2. Get your employer to pay Kitware to make the changes that your work 
requires.

HTH,
Charl

-- 
charl p. botha http://cpbotha.net/ http://visualisation.tudelft.nl/