Re: Registries

Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:

> One thing; the converter-registries aren't really bound to modules
> though are they?  

That's the intention.

> They are really just bound to the shared library. 

That's not the intention.  Converter registrations would occur within
the context of some current module scope, which would stick them into
a particular...

> So if you have multiple modules in the same shared library you would
> automatically share registries as well.

Agh, I think there may be a serious problem for registry scoping
here.  At least on most Unices, all extension modules linked to the
same langbinding .so are prone to share a single copy of
registration<T> for any T.  

This is going to require some rethinking.  

One possibility is to have each registration<T> contain an array of
what's currently stored in a registration, and encode an index in each
wrapped function object corresponding to the scope in which it's
wrapped.  Very ugly though - I'd rather come up with something better.

Ralf, what was the compelling use case for registry scoping anyway?
It had something to do with to-python converters and the fact that
there is only one per type.  Can you lay it out in detail?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com