[Ns-developers] Status of Python bindings

[Mathieu Lacage]

On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 22:42 +0100, Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
> [...] 
> 
>         
>          - Function (return_type, name, args) -> Function (name,
>         return_type,
>         args). The same would hold for add_cpp_method, of course.
> 
> It occurred to me, since we're making API changes, would this look to
> strange to you:
> 
>     Function (name, args, return_type) 
> 
> This would allow me to make the return_type parameter optional, which
> would be equivalent to void, and so simplify considerably definition
> of functions which do not return anything.  It would also make the
> ordering more in line with UML method description, which are like:
> 
>    +methodName(parameters): return_type

I am a bit uneasy about this: C++ makes the definition of function
_arguments_ optional (if none are defined, it is equivalent to 'void')
but always requires the definition of the return type. So, your proposal
feels a bit awkward. Input from craig would be valuable.

Mathieu