[SAGA-RG] Python Bindings

[Andre Merzky]

Hi Steve,

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steve Fisher <dr.s.m.fisher at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ah, I see - thanks for clarifying!  Yes, possibly that version -
although I am not exactly against verbose text in specs (as you may
have noticed ;-)


>>> 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.

+1 on the grammar obviously.  But why not referencing duck-typing?
Isn't that the main reason why an implementor can completely ignore
object hierarchy?


>>> 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.

got it, thanks.


>>> 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!

Ok, I'll give it a try.

Thanks again, Andre.


>>> 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...



-- 
Nothing is really difficult...