Re: Suggestion on priorities for improving pytave

[Abhinav Tripathi]

On Jul 7, 2016 10:14 PM, "Mike Miller" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I agree with Colin, and at least for now I think it would be best if we
> try to use the Python interface the way we want users to use it
> (dogfooding).
>
> If it becomes obvious that this is a needed feature then we could add
> it. But I hope that we can get to the point where we don't need to
> assign names to values in Python at all, and just use pyobjects.
>

Ohk. I just thought we would need naming variables in cases when we have to call some functions as in symbolic. We store every parameter in '_ins' list in python and have to do the pyexec then pycall mechanism that I stated earlier.

> Thanks. I think the first step would be just discussing what kind of
> Octave syntax we want to use to be able to pass named parameters to
> Python functions, I threw out the idea of a scalar struct with
> name/value pairs, but maybe other ideas?
>
> --
> mike

For the octave syntax, we could define a new function that would force unpacking of the pyobject before calling the function.
Somthing like -
pycall("func",  unpack(pyobject_of_a_list))
.
That's just from the top of my head. I'll try to think and will let you know if I get a better idea about the syntax to follow. Also, I'll think about other ideas that could be implemented.
.
Abhinav