bump version to 12.2.2-pve1

[ceph.git] / ceph / src / boost / libs / python / doc / article.rst

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Building Hybrid Systems with Boost.Python
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

:Author: David Abrahams
:Contact: dave@boost-consulting.com
:organization: `Boost Consulting`_
:date: 2003-05-14

:Author: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve

:copyright: Copyright David Abrahams and Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve 2003. All rights reserved

.. contents:: Table of Contents

.. _`Boost Consulting`: http://www.boost-consulting.com

==========
 Abstract
==========

Boost.Python is an open source C++ library which provides a concise
IDL-like interface for binding C++ classes and functions to
Python. Leveraging the full power of C++ compile-time introspection
and of recently developed metaprogramming techniques, this is achieved
entirely in pure C++, without introducing a new syntax.
Boost.Python's rich set of features and high-level interface make it
possible to engineer packages from the ground up as hybrid systems,
giving programmers easy and coherent access to both the efficient
compile-time polymorphism of C++ and the extremely convenient run-time
polymorphism of Python.

==============
 Introduction
==============

Python and C++ are in many ways as different as two languages could
be: while C++ is usually compiled to machine-code, Python is
interpreted.  Python's dynamic type system is often cited as the
foundation of its flexibility, while in C++ static typing is the
cornerstone of its efficiency. C++ has an intricate and difficult
compile-time meta-language, while in Python, practically everything
happens at runtime.

Yet for many programmers, these very differences mean that Python and
C++ complement one another perfectly.  Performance bottlenecks in
Python programs can be rewritten in C++ for maximal speed, and
authors of powerful C++ libraries choose Python as a middleware
language for its flexible system integration capabilities.
Furthermore, the surface differences mask some strong similarities:

* 'C'-family control structures (if, while, for...)

* Support for object-orientation, functional programming, and generic
  programming (these are both *multi-paradigm* programming languages.)

* Comprehensive operator overloading facilities, recognizing the
  importance of syntactic variability for readability and
  expressivity.

* High-level concepts such as collections and iterators.

* High-level encapsulation facilities (C++: namespaces, Python: modules)
  to support the design of re-usable libraries.

* Exception-handling for effective management of error conditions.

* C++ idioms in common use, such as handle/body classes and
  reference-counted smart pointers mirror Python reference semantics.

Given Python's rich 'C' interoperability API, it should in principle
be possible to expose C++ type and function interfaces to Python with
an analogous interface to their C++ counterparts.  However, the
facilities provided by Python alone for integration with C++ are
relatively meager.  Compared to C++ and Python, 'C' has only very
rudimentary abstraction facilities, and support for exception-handling
is completely missing.  'C' extension module writers are required to
manually manage Python reference counts, which is both annoyingly
tedious and extremely error-prone. Traditional extension modules also
tend to contain a great deal of boilerplate code repetition which
makes them difficult to maintain, especially when wrapping an evolving
API.

These limitations have lead to the development of a variety of wrapping
systems.  SWIG_ is probably the most popular package for the
integration of C/C++ and Python. A more recent development is SIP_,
which was specifically designed for interfacing Python with the Qt_
graphical user interface library.  Both SWIG and SIP introduce their
own specialized languages for customizing inter-language bindings.
This has certain advantages, but having to deal with three different
languages (Python, C/C++ and the interface language) also introduces
practical and mental difficulties.  The CXX_ package demonstrates an
interesting alternative.  It shows that at least some parts of
Python's 'C' API can be wrapped and presented through a much more
user-friendly C++ interface. However, unlike SWIG and SIP, CXX does
not include support for wrapping C++ classes as new Python types.

The features and goals of Boost.Python_ overlap significantly with
many of these other systems.  That said, Boost.Python attempts to
maximize convenience and flexibility without introducing a separate
wrapping language.  Instead, it presents the user with a high-level
C++ interface for wrapping C++ classes and functions, managing much of
the complexity behind-the-scenes with static metaprogramming.
Boost.Python also goes beyond the scope of earlier systems by
providing:

* Support for C++ virtual functions that can be overridden in Python.

* Comprehensive lifetime management facilities for low-level C++
  pointers and references.

* Support for organizing extensions as Python packages,
  with a central registry for inter-language type conversions.

* A safe and convenient mechanism for tying into Python's powerful
  serialization engine (pickle).

* Coherence with the rules for handling C++ lvalues and rvalues that
  can only come from a deep understanding of both the Python and C++
  type systems.

The key insight that sparked the development of Boost.Python is that
much of the boilerplate code in traditional extension modules could be
eliminated using C++ compile-time introspection.  Each argument of a
wrapped C++ function must be extracted from a Python object using a
procedure that depends on the argument type.  Similarly the function's
return type determines how the return value will be converted from C++
to Python.  Of course argument and return types are part of each
function's type, and this is exactly the source from which
Boost.Python deduces most of the information required.

This approach leads to *user guided wrapping*: as much information is
extracted directly from the source code to be wrapped as is possible
within the framework of pure C++, and some additional information is
supplied explicitly by the user.  Mostly the guidance is mechanical
and little real intervention is required.  Because the interface
specification is written in the same full-featured language as the
code being exposed, the user has unprecedented power available when
she does need to take control.

.. _Python: http://www.python.org/
.. _SWIG: http://www.swig.org/
.. _SIP: http://www.riverbankcomputing.co.uk/sip/index.php
.. _Qt: http://www.trolltech.com/
.. _CXX: http://cxx.sourceforge.net/
.. _Boost.Python: http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc

===========================
 Boost.Python Design Goals 
===========================

The primary goal of Boost.Python is to allow users to expose C++
classes and functions to Python using nothing more than a C++
compiler.  In broad strokes, the user experience should be one of
directly manipulating C++ objects from Python.

However, it's also important not to translate all interfaces *too*
literally: the idioms of each language must be respected.  For
example, though C++ and Python both have an iterator concept, they are
expressed very differently.  Boost.Python has to be able to bridge the
interface gap.

It must be possible to insulate Python users from crashes resulting
from trivial misuses of C++ interfaces, such as accessing
already-deleted objects.  By the same token the library should
insulate C++ users from low-level Python 'C' API, replacing
error-prone 'C' interfaces like manual reference-count management and
raw ``PyObject`` pointers with more-robust alternatives.

Support for component-based development is crucial, so that C++ types
exposed in one extension module can be passed to functions exposed in
another without loss of crucial information like C++ inheritance
relationships.

Finally, all wrapping must be *non-intrusive*, without modifying or
even seeing the original C++ source code.  Existing C++ libraries have
to be wrappable by third parties who only have access to header files
and binaries.

==========================
 Hello Boost.Python World
==========================

And now for a preview of Boost.Python, and how it improves on the raw
facilities offered by Python. Here's a function we might want to
expose::

    char const* greet(unsigned x)
    {
       static char const* const msgs[] = { "hello", "Boost.Python", "world!" };

       if (x > 2) 
           throw std::range_error("greet: index out of range");

       return msgs[x];
    }

To wrap this function in standard C++ using the Python 'C' API, we'd
need something like this::

    extern "C" // all Python interactions use 'C' linkage and calling convention
    {
        // Wrapper to handle argument/result conversion and checking
        PyObject* greet_wrap(PyObject* args, PyObject * keywords)
        {
             int x;
             if (PyArg_ParseTuple(args, "i", &x))    // extract/check arguments
             {
                 char const* result = greet(x);      // invoke wrapped function
                 return PyString_FromString(result); // convert result to Python
             }
             return 0;                               // error occurred
        }

        // Table of wrapped functions to be exposed by the module
        static PyMethodDef methods[] = {
            { "greet", greet_wrap, METH_VARARGS, "return one of 3 parts of a greeting" }
            , { NULL, NULL, 0, NULL } // sentinel
        };

        // module initialization function
        DL_EXPORT init_hello()
        {
            (void) Py_InitModule("hello", methods); // add the methods to the module
        }
    }

Now here's the wrapping code we'd use to expose it with Boost.Python::

    #include <boost/python.hpp>
    using namespace boost::python;
    BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(hello)
    {
        def("greet", greet, "return one of 3 parts of a greeting");
    }

and here it is in action::

    >>> import hello
    >>> for x in range(3):
    ...     print hello.greet(x)
    ...
    hello
    Boost.Python
    world!

Aside from the fact that the 'C' API version is much more verbose,
it's worth noting a few things that it doesn't handle correctly:

* The original function accepts an unsigned integer, and the Python
  'C' API only gives us a way of extracting signed integers. The
  Boost.Python version will raise a Python exception if we try to pass
  a negative number to ``hello.greet``, but the other one will proceed
  to do whatever the C++ implementation does when converting an
  negative integer to unsigned (usually wrapping to some very large
  number), and pass the incorrect translation on to the wrapped
  function.

* That brings us to the second problem: if the C++ ``greet()``
  function is called with a number greater than 2, it will throw an
  exception.  Typically, if a C++ exception propagates across the
  boundary with code generated by a 'C' compiler, it will cause a
  crash.  As you can see in the first version, there's no C++
  scaffolding there to prevent this from happening.  Functions wrapped
  by Boost.Python automatically include an exception-handling layer
  which protects Python users by translating unhandled C++ exceptions
  into a corresponding Python exception.

* A slightly more-subtle limitation is that the argument conversion
  used in the Python 'C' API case can only get that integer ``x`` in
  *one way*.  PyArg_ParseTuple can't convert Python ``long`` objects
  (arbitrary-precision integers) which happen to fit in an ``unsigned
  int`` but not in a ``signed long``, nor will it ever handle a
  wrapped C++ class with a user-defined implicit ``operator unsigned
  int()`` conversion. Boost.Python's dynamic type conversion
  registry allows users to add arbitrary conversion methods.

==================
 Library Overview
==================

This section outlines some of the library's major features.  Except as
neccessary to avoid confusion, details of library implementation are
omitted.

------------------
 Exposing Classes
------------------

C++ classes and structs are exposed with a similarly-terse interface.
Given::

    struct World
    {
        void set(std::string msg) { this->msg = msg; }
        std::string greet() { return msg; }
        std::string msg;
    };

The following code will expose it in our extension module::
    
    #include <boost/python.hpp>
    BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(hello)
    {
        class_<World>("World")
            .def("greet", &World::greet)
            .def("set", &World::set)
        ;
    }

Although this code has a certain pythonic familiarity, people
sometimes find the syntax bit confusing because it doesn't look like
most of the C++ code they're used to. All the same, this is just
standard C++.  Because of their flexible syntax and operator
overloading, C++ and Python are great for defining domain-specific
(sub)languages
(DSLs), and that's what we've done in Boost.Python. To break it down::

    class_<World>("World")

constructs an unnamed object of type ``class_<World>`` and passes
``"World"`` to its constructor.  This creates a new-style Python class
called ``World`` in the extension module, and associates it with the
C++ type ``World`` in the Boost.Python type conversion registry.  We
might have also written::

    class_<World> w("World");

but that would've been more verbose, since we'd have to name ``w``
again to invoke its ``def()`` member function::

        w.def("greet", &World::greet)

There's nothing special about the location of the dot for member
access in the original example: C++ allows any amount of whitespace on
either side of a token, and placing the dot at the beginning of each
line allows us to chain as many successive calls to member functions
as we like with a uniform syntax.  The other key fact that allows
chaining is that ``class_<>`` member functions all return a reference
to ``*this``.

So the example is equivalent to::

    class_<World> w("World");
    w.def("greet", &World::greet);
    w.def("set", &World::set);

It's occasionally useful to be able to break down the components of a
Boost.Python class wrapper in this way, but the rest of this article
will stick to the terse syntax.

For completeness, here's the wrapped class in use: ::

    >>> import hello
    >>> planet = hello.World()
    >>> planet.set('howdy')
    >>> planet.greet()
    'howdy'

Constructors
============

Since our ``World`` class is just a plain ``struct``, it has an
implicit no-argument (nullary) constructor.  Boost.Python exposes the
nullary constructor by default, which is why we were able to write: ::

  >>> planet = hello.World()

However, well-designed classes in any language may require constructor
arguments in order to establish their invariants.  Unlike Python,
where ``__init__`` is just a specially-named method, In C++
constructors cannot be handled like ordinary member functions.  In
particular, we can't take their address: ``&World::World`` is an
error.  The library provides a different interface for specifying
constructors.  Given::

    struct World
    {
        World(std::string msg); // added constructor
        ...

we can modify our wrapping code as follows::

    class_<World>("World", init<std::string>())
        ...

of course, a C++ class may have additional constructors, and we can
expose those as well by passing more instances of ``init<...>`` to
``def()``::

    class_<World>("World", init<std::string>())
        .def(init<double, double>())
        ...

Boost.Python allows wrapped functions, member functions, and
constructors to be overloaded to mirror C++ overloading.

Data Members and Properties
===========================

Any publicly-accessible data members in a C++ class can be easily
exposed as either ``readonly`` or ``readwrite`` attributes::

    class_<World>("World", init<std::string>())
        .def_readonly("msg", &World::msg)
        ...

and can be used directly in Python: ::

    >>> planet = hello.World('howdy')
    >>> planet.msg
    'howdy'

This does *not* result in adding attributes to the ``World`` instance
``__dict__``, which can result in substantial memory savings when
wrapping large data structures.  In fact, no instance ``__dict__``
will be created at all unless attributes are explicitly added from
Python. Boost.Python owes this capability to the new Python 2.2 type
system, in particular the descriptor interface and ``property`` type.

In C++, publicly-accessible data members are considered a sign of poor
design because they break encapsulation, and style guides usually
dictate the use of "getter" and "setter" functions instead.  In
Python, however, ``__getattr__``, ``__setattr__``, and since 2.2,
``property`` mean that attribute access is just one more
well-encapsulated syntactic tool at the programmer's disposal.
Boost.Python bridges this idiomatic gap by making Python ``property``
creation directly available to users.  If ``msg`` were private, we
could still expose it as attribute in Python as follows::

    class_<World>("World", init<std::string>())
        .add_property("msg", &World::greet, &World::set)
        ...

The example above mirrors the familiar usage of properties in Python
2.2+: ::

    >>> class World(object):
    ...     __init__(self, msg):
    ...         self.__msg = msg
    ...     def greet(self):
    ...         return self.__msg
    ...     def set(self, msg):
    ...         self.__msg = msg
    ...     msg = property(greet, set)

Operator Overloading
====================

The ability to write arithmetic operators for user-defined types has
been a major factor in the success of both languages for numerical
computation, and the success of packages like NumPy_ attests to the
power of exposing operators in extension modules.  Boost.Python
provides a concise mechanism for wrapping operator overloads. The
example below shows a fragment from a wrapper for the Boost rational
number library::

    class_<rational<int> >("rational_int")
      .def(init<int, int>()) // constructor, e.g. rational_int(3,4)
      .def("numerator", &rational<int>::numerator)
      .def("denominator", &rational<int>::denominator)
      .def(-self)        // __neg__ (unary minus)
      .def(self + self)  // __add__ (homogeneous)
      .def(self * self)  // __mul__
      .def(self + int()) // __add__ (heterogenous)
      .def(int() + self) // __radd__
      ...

The magic is performed using a simplified application of "expression
templates" [VELD1995]_, a technique originally developed for
optimization of high-performance matrix algebra expressions.  The
essence is that instead of performing the computation immediately,
operators are overloaded to construct a type *representing* the
computation.  In matrix algebra, dramatic optimizations are often
available when the structure of an entire expression can be taken into
account, rather than evaluating each operation "greedily".
Boost.Python uses the same technique to build an appropriate Python
method object based on expressions involving ``self``.

.. _NumPy: http://www.pfdubois.com/numpy/

Inheritance
===========

C++ inheritance relationships can be represented to Boost.Python by adding
an optional ``bases<...>`` argument to the ``class_<...>`` template
parameter list as follows::

     class_<Derived, bases<Base1,Base2> >("Derived")
          ...

This has two effects:  

1. When the ``class_<...>`` is created, Python type objects
   corresponding to ``Base1`` and ``Base2`` are looked up in
   Boost.Python's registry, and are used as bases for the new Python
   ``Derived`` type object, so methods exposed for the Python ``Base1``
   and ``Base2`` types are automatically members of the ``Derived``
   type.  Because the registry is global, this works correctly even if
   ``Derived`` is exposed in a different module from either of its
   bases.

2. C++ conversions from ``Derived`` to its bases are added to the
   Boost.Python registry.  Thus wrapped C++ methods expecting (a
   pointer or reference to) an object of either base type can be
   called with an object wrapping a ``Derived`` instance.  Wrapped
   member functions of class ``T`` are treated as though they have an
   implicit first argument of ``T&``, so these conversions are
   neccessary to allow the base class methods to be called for derived
   objects.

Of course it's possible to derive new Python classes from wrapped C++
class instances.  Because Boost.Python uses the new-style class
system, that works very much as for the Python built-in types.  There
is one significant detail in which it differs: the built-in types
generally establish their invariants in their ``__new__`` function, so
that derived classes do not need to call ``__init__`` on the base
class before invoking its methods : ::

    >>> class L(list):
    ...      def __init__(self):
    ...          pass
    ...
    >>> L().reverse()
    >>> 

Because C++ object construction is a one-step operation, C++ instance
data cannot be constructed until the arguments are available, in the
``__init__`` function: ::

    >>> class D(SomeBoostPythonClass):
    ...      def __init__(self):
    ...          pass
    ...
    >>> D().some_boost_python_method()
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
    TypeError: bad argument type for built-in operation

This happened because Boost.Python couldn't find instance data of type
``SomeBoostPythonClass`` within the ``D`` instance; ``D``'s ``__init__``
function masked construction of the base class.  It could be corrected
by either removing ``D``'s ``__init__`` function or having it call
``SomeBoostPythonClass.__init__(...)`` explicitly.

Virtual Functions
=================

Deriving new types in Python from extension classes is not very
interesting unless they can be used polymorphically from C++.  In
other words, Python method implementations should appear to override
the implementation of C++ virtual functions when called *through base
class pointers/references from C++*.  Since the only way to alter the
behavior of a virtual function is to override it in a derived class,
the user must build a special derived class to dispatch a polymorphic
class' virtual functions::

    //
    // interface to wrap:
    //
    class Base
    {
     public:
        virtual int f(std::string x) { return 42; }
        virtual ~Base();
    };

    int calls_f(Base const& b, std::string x) { return b.f(x); }

    //
    // Wrapping Code
    //

    // Dispatcher class
    struct BaseWrap : Base
    {
        // Store a pointer to the Python object
        BaseWrap(PyObject* self_) : self(self_) {}
        PyObject* self;

        // Default implementation, for when f is not overridden
        int f_default(std::string x) { return this->Base::f(x); }
        // Dispatch implementation
        int f(std::string x) { return call_method<int>(self, "f", x); }
    };

    ...
        def("calls_f", calls_f);
        class_<Base, BaseWrap>("Base")
            .def("f", &Base::f, &BaseWrap::f_default)
            ;

Now here's some Python code which demonstrates: ::

    >>> class Derived(Base):
    ...     def f(self, s):
    ...          return len(s)
    ...
    >>> calls_f(Base(), 'foo')
    42
    >>> calls_f(Derived(), 'forty-two')
    9

Things to notice about the dispatcher class:

* The key element which allows overriding in Python is the
  ``call_method`` invocation, which uses the same global type
  conversion registry as the C++ function wrapping does to convert its
  arguments from C++ to Python and its return type from Python to C++.

* Any constructor signatures you wish to wrap must be replicated with
  an initial ``PyObject*`` argument

* The dispatcher must store this argument so that it can be used to
  invoke ``call_method``

* The ``f_default`` member function is needed when the function being
  exposed is not pure virtual; there's no other way ``Base::f`` can be
  called on an object of type ``BaseWrap``, since it overrides ``f``.

Deeper Reflection on the Horizon?
=================================

Admittedly, this formula is tedious to repeat, especially on a project
with many polymorphic classes.  That it is neccessary reflects some
limitations in C++'s compile-time introspection capabilities: there's
no way to enumerate the members of a class and find out which are
virtual functions.  At least one very promising project has been
started to write a front-end which can generate these dispatchers (and
other wrapping code) automatically from C++ headers.  

Pyste_ is being developed by Bruno da Silva de Oliveira.  It builds on
GCC_XML_, which generates an XML version of GCC's internal program
representation.  Since GCC is a highly-conformant C++ compiler, this
ensures correct handling of the most-sophisticated template code and
full access to the underlying type system.  In keeping with the
Boost.Python philosophy, a Pyste interface description is neither
intrusive on the code being wrapped, nor expressed in some unfamiliar
language: instead it is a 100% pure Python script.  If Pyste is
successful it will mark a move away from wrapping everything directly
in C++ for many of our users.  It will also allow us the choice to
shift some of the metaprogram code from C++ to Python.  We expect that
soon, not only our users but the Boost.Python developers themselves
will be "thinking hybrid" about their own code.

.. _`GCC_XML`: http://www.gccxml.org/HTML/Index.html
.. _`Pyste`: http://www.boost.org/libs/python/pyste

---------------
 Serialization
---------------

*Serialization* is the process of converting objects in memory to a
form that can be stored on disk or sent over a network connection. The
serialized object (most often a plain string) can be retrieved and
converted back to the original object. A good serialization system will
automatically convert entire object hierarchies. Python's standard
``pickle`` module is just such a system.  It leverages the language's strong
runtime introspection facilities for serializing practically arbitrary
user-defined objects. With a few simple and unintrusive provisions this
powerful machinery can be extended to also work for wrapped C++ objects.
Here is an example::

    #include <string>

    struct World
    {
        World(std::string a_msg) : msg(a_msg) {}
        std::string greet() const { return msg; }
        std::string msg;
    };

    #include <boost/python.hpp>
    using namespace boost::python;

    struct World_picklers : pickle_suite
    {
      static tuple
      getinitargs(World const& w) { return make_tuple(w.greet()); }
    };

    BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(hello)
    {
        class_<World>("World", init<std::string>())
            .def("greet", &World::greet)
            .def_pickle(World_picklers())
        ;
    }

Now let's create a ``World`` object and put it to rest on disk::

    >>> import hello
    >>> import pickle
    >>> a_world = hello.World("howdy")
    >>> pickle.dump(a_world, open("my_world", "w"))

In a potentially *different script* on a potentially *different
computer* with a potentially *different operating system*::

    >>> import pickle
    >>> resurrected_world = pickle.load(open("my_world", "r"))
    >>> resurrected_world.greet()
    'howdy'

Of course the ``cPickle`` module can also be used for faster
processing.

Boost.Python's ``pickle_suite`` fully supports the ``pickle`` protocol
defined in the standard Python documentation. Like a __getinitargs__
function in Python, the pickle_suite's getinitargs() is responsible for
creating the argument tuple that will be use to reconstruct the pickled
object.  The other elements of the Python pickling protocol,
__getstate__ and __setstate__ can be optionally provided via C++
getstate and setstate functions.  C++'s static type system allows the
library to ensure at compile-time that nonsensical combinations of
functions (e.g. getstate without setstate) are not used.

Enabling serialization of more complex C++ objects requires a little
more work than is shown in the example above. Fortunately the
``object`` interface (see next section) greatly helps in keeping the
code manageable.

------------------
 Object interface
------------------

Experienced 'C' language extension module authors will be familiar
with the ubiquitous ``PyObject*``, manual reference-counting, and the
need to remember which API calls return "new" (owned) references or
"borrowed" (raw) references.  These constraints are not just
cumbersome but also a major source of errors, especially in the
presence of exceptions.

Boost.Python provides a class ``object`` which automates reference
counting and provides conversion to Python from C++ objects of
arbitrary type.  This significantly reduces the learning effort for
prospective extension module writers.

Creating an ``object`` from any other type is extremely simple::

    object s("hello, world");  // s manages a Python string

``object`` has templated interactions with all other types, with
automatic to-python conversions. It happens so naturally that it's
easily overlooked::

   object ten_Os = 10 * s[4]; // -> "oooooooooo"

In the example above, ``4`` and ``10`` are converted to Python objects
before the indexing and multiplication operations are invoked.

The ``extract<T>`` class template can be used to convert Python objects
to C++ types::

    double x = extract<double>(o);

If a conversion in either direction cannot be performed, an
appropriate exception is thrown at runtime.

The ``object`` type is accompanied by a set of derived types
that mirror the Python built-in types such as ``list``, ``dict``,
``tuple``, etc. as much as possible. This enables convenient
manipulation of these high-level types from C++::

    dict d;
    d["some"] = "thing";
    d["lucky_number"] = 13;
    list l = d.keys();

This almost looks and works like regular Python code, but it is pure
C++.  Of course we can wrap C++ functions which accept or return
``object`` instances.

=================
 Thinking hybrid
=================

Because of the practical and mental difficulties of combining
programming languages, it is common to settle a single language at the
outset of any development effort.  For many applications, performance
considerations dictate the use of a compiled language for the core
algorithms.  Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the static type
system, the price we pay for runtime performance is often a
significant increase in development time.  Experience shows that
writing maintainable C++ code usually takes longer and requires *far*
more hard-earned working experience than developing comparable Python
code.  Even when developers are comfortable working exclusively in
compiled languages, they often augment their systems by some type of
ad hoc scripting layer for the benefit of their users without ever
availing themselves of the same advantages.

Boost.Python enables us to *think hybrid*.  Python can be used for
rapidly prototyping a new application; its ease of use and the large
pool of standard libraries give us a head start on the way to a
working system.  If necessary, the working code can be used to
discover rate-limiting hotspots.  To maximize performance these can
be reimplemented in C++, together with the Boost.Python bindings
needed to tie them back into the existing higher-level procedure.

Of course, this *top-down* approach is less attractive if it is clear
from the start that many algorithms will eventually have to be
implemented in C++.  Fortunately Boost.Python also enables us to
pursue a *bottom-up* approach.  We have used this approach very
successfully in the development of a toolbox for scientific
applications.  The toolbox started out mainly as a library of C++
classes with Boost.Python bindings, and for a while the growth was
mainly concentrated on the C++ parts.  However, as the toolbox is
becoming more complete, more and more newly added functionality can be
implemented in Python.

.. image:: images/python_cpp_mix.png

This figure shows the estimated ratio of newly added C++ and Python
code over time as new algorithms are implemented.  We expect this
ratio to level out near 70% Python.  Being able to solve new problems
mostly in Python rather than a more difficult statically typed
language is the return on our investment in Boost.Python.  The ability
to access all of our code from Python allows a broader group of
developers to use it in the rapid development of new applications.

=====================
 Development history
=====================

The first version of Boost.Python was developed in 2000 by Dave
Abrahams at Dragon Systems, where he was privileged to have Tim Peters
as a guide to "The Zen of Python".  One of Dave's jobs was to develop
a Python-based natural language processing system.  Since it was
eventually going to be targeting embedded hardware, it was always
assumed that the compute-intensive core would be rewritten in C++ to
optimize speed and memory footprint [#proto]_.  The project also wanted to
test all of its C++ code using Python test scripts [#test]_.  The only
tool we knew of for binding C++ and Python was SWIG_, and at the time
its handling of C++ was weak.  It would be false to claim any deep
insight into the possible advantages of Boost.Python's approach at
this point.  Dave's interest and expertise in fancy C++ template
tricks had just reached the point where he could do some real damage,
and Boost.Python emerged as it did because it filled a need and
because it seemed like a cool thing to try.

This early version was aimed at many of the same basic goals we've
described in this paper, differing most-noticeably by having a
slightly more cumbersome syntax and by lack of special support for
operator overloading, pickling, and component-based development.
These last three features were quickly added by Ullrich Koethe and
Ralf Grosse-Kunstleve [#feature]_, and other enthusiastic contributors arrived
on the scene to contribute enhancements like support for nested
modules and static member functions.

By early 2001 development had stabilized and few new features were
being added, however a disturbing new fact came to light: Ralf had
begun testing Boost.Python on pre-release versions of a compiler using
the EDG_ front-end, and the mechanism at the core of Boost.Python
responsible for handling conversions between Python and C++ types was
failing to compile.  As it turned out, we had been exploiting a very
common bug in the implementation of all the C++ compilers we had
tested.  We knew that as C++ compilers rapidly became more
standards-compliant, the library would begin failing on more
platforms.  Unfortunately, because the mechanism was so central to the
functioning of the library, fixing the problem looked very difficult.

Fortunately, later that year Lawrence Berkeley and later Lawrence
Livermore National labs contracted with `Boost Consulting`_ for support
and development of Boost.Python, and there was a new opportunity to
address fundamental issues and ensure a future for the library.  A
redesign effort began with the low level type conversion architecture,
building in standards-compliance and support for component-based
development (in contrast to version 1 where conversions had to be
explicitly imported and exported across module boundaries).  A new
analysis of the relationship between the Python and C++ objects was
done, resulting in more intuitive handling for C++ lvalues and
rvalues.

The emergence of a powerful new type system in Python 2.2 made the
choice of whether to maintain compatibility with Python 1.5.2 easy:
the opportunity to throw away a great deal of elaborate code for
emulating classic Python classes alone was too good to pass up.  In
addition, Python iterators and descriptors provided crucial and
elegant tools for representing similar C++ constructs.  The
development of the generalized ``object`` interface allowed us to
further shield C++ programmers from the dangers and syntactic burdens
of the Python 'C' API.  A great number of other features including C++
exception translation, improved support for overloaded functions, and
most significantly, CallPolicies for handling pointers and
references, were added during this period.

In October 2002, version 2 of Boost.Python was released.  Development
since then has concentrated on improved support for C++ runtime
polymorphism and smart pointers.  Peter Dimov's ingenious
``boost::shared_ptr`` design in particular has allowed us to give the
hybrid developer a consistent interface for moving objects back and
forth across the language barrier without loss of information.  At
first, we were concerned that the sophistication and complexity of the
Boost.Python v2 implementation might discourage contributors, but the
emergence of Pyste_ and several other significant feature
contributions have laid those fears to rest.  Daily questions on the
Python C++-sig and a backlog of desired improvements show that the
library is getting used.  To us, the future looks bright.

.. _`EDG`: http://www.edg.com

=============
 Conclusions
=============

Boost.Python achieves seamless interoperability between two rich and
complimentary language environments.  Because it leverages template
metaprogramming to introspect about types and functions, the user
never has to learn a third syntax: the interface definitions are
written in concise and maintainable C++.  Also, the wrapping system
doesn't have to parse C++ headers or represent the type system: the
compiler does that work for us.

Computationally intensive tasks play to the strengths of C++ and are
often impossible to implement efficiently in pure Python, while jobs
like serialization that are trivial in Python can be very difficult in
pure C++.  Given the luxury of building a hybrid software system from
the ground up, we can approach design with new confidence and power.

===========
 Citations
===========

.. [VELD1995] T. Veldhuizen, "Expression Templates," C++ Report,
   Vol. 7 No. 5 June 1995, pp. 26-31.
   http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/papers/Expression-Templates/exprtmpl.html

===========
 Footnotes
===========

.. [#proto] In retrospect, it seems that "thinking hybrid" from the
        ground up might have been better for the NLP system: the
        natural component boundaries defined by the pure python
        prototype turned out to be inappropriate for getting the
        desired performance and memory footprint out of the C++ core,
        which eventually caused some redesign overhead on the Python
        side when the core was moved to C++.

.. [#test] We also have some reservations about driving all C++
        testing through a Python interface, unless that's the only way
        it will be ultimately used.  Any transition across language
        boundaries with such different object models can inevitably
        mask bugs.

.. [#feature] These features were expressed very differently in v1 of
        Boost.Python