>  Unfortunately, no. That would be cool, though, wouldn't it?  I'm
>  pretty sure you can do this after you define class_<Settings>, though:
>  
>      // Note no leading dot.
>      def("Settings", &Settings::GetInstance
>          , return_value_policy<reference_existing_object>());
>  
>  This will replace the class in the module by a function called
>  Settings that gets the instance.

Yes, that worked beautifully! Now I just do (in Python):

Settings().detailThreshold = 10
Settings().verbose = true

Just found it hard to decide whether I should keep the Python wrapper
as close as possible to the C++ library and use "SetVerbose" and
"GetVerbose", or whether to use Boost.Python's really nifty
properties. Well, I couldn't resist! ;)

Do properties currently only handle straight forward single parameter
"setters"? How difficult would it be to allow it to do two parameters,
with e.g. "object.property[5] = 10"? (Or can it do that already?)

>  I think that's right. However, I wonder if we should change the
>  __init__ function that you get from no_init to be a no-op unless the
>  Python class actually has the same type as the abstract base...

Sounds like an idea ...

Thanks again!
Hugo van der Merwe

_______________________________________________
C++-sig mailing list
C++-sig@[...].org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/c++-sig