[SAGA-RG] Python Bindings

[Steve Fisher]

I have finally got back to this after a long period of doing other things

On 24 October 2012 16:08, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Steve Fisher <dr.s.m.fisher at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2.1 Para 1 sentence 2 ->  While we expect that
>> language bindings will, in general, follow that hierarchy for Python
>> it is not useful to do so.
>
> I would argue that usefulness is something to be evaluated by the
> implementor.  I, for one, find inheritance exceedingly useful, also in
> python ;-)

I had meant to shorten and simplify your sentence without changing its
meaning. However I had shortened it too much. How about replacing the
whole para with:

The SAGA API defines an interface and class hierarchy which we
normally expect language bindings to follow. In the case of Python
some deviation produces a better result.

>
>
>> Omit 2.1 para 3
>
> That is supposed to lead into 2.1.x, so needs at least some
> replacement.

I don't think it contains any essential linking material. If you wish
to keep it then improve the grammar and don't mention duck-typing.

>
>
>> 2.1.1 CAN -> MAY
>
> Hmm, first you state quite strongly that inheritance is not useful,
> then you discourage the flattening option -- that does not fit?  MAY
> means that this choice needs to be well motivated beyond the arguments
> in this document (kind of).  Fine with me actually, but I think that
> is not consistent.

This is a misunderstanding. Inheritance is great - (except in C++ of
course). You had the word CAN in caps which I presumed was meant to
follow the rules of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt on the use of
a few special words. I just suggested changing it to a standard word
without changing the meaning.

>
>> 2.1.2 Omit last two sentences
>
> The last sentence is repetition, removed - but the sentence before is
> relevant, no?

It is not necessary and I see no need to introduce ducks

>
>
>
>> 2.5 Omit this section - it will be hard to get right and will just
>> cause confusion
>
> I can see that - ok to add is as second appendix?

Try it - but my comments still stand!

>
>
>> Appendix A - This should start with an explananation of how to
>> interpret what follows
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Thanks, Andre.
>
>
>> I will send comments on the contents of Appendix A as a separate email
>>
>> Steve
>
>
>
> --
> Nothing is really difficult...