I run openSUSE 12.2 (64-bit) KDE. Using the openSUSE 12.2 Repo Index of /repositories/devel:/languages:/python/openSUSE_12.2 I installed the python-vtk (+python-vtk-qt) package but when I try to import the library within Python I get a runtime error:
Python 2.7.3 (default, Apr 14 2012, 08:58:41) [GCC] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import vtk
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vtk/__init__.py", line 127, in <module>
from qvtk import *
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vtk/qvtk.py", line 8, in <module>
from QVTKPython import *
RuntimeError: the sip module implements API v8.0 to v8.1 but the vtk.QVTKPython module requires API v9.1
I would be grateful if anyone could identify which package I need to update!
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:06:02 +0000, flymail wrote:
> RuntimeError: the sip module implements API v8.0 to v8.1 but the
> vtk.QVTKPython module requires API v9.1
>
> --------------------
>
>
> I would be grateful if anyone could identify which package I need to
> update!
The runtime error above indicates that it’s the sip module that needs to
be updated. It’s the module that implements the outdated API.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:26:02 +0000, flymail wrote:
> hendersj;2507897 Wrote:
>>
>> The runtime error above indicates that it’s the sip module that needs
>> to be updated. It’s the module that implements the outdated API.
>>
>>
> Thanks Jim. I didn’t realise the GNU oSIP was insufficient. I installed
> python-sip-bin package and the import works perfectly.
Glad that got it working - I’m about 3 weeks into Python myself, finding
it to be a very good language to work with.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:06:01 +0000, flymail wrote:
> hendersj;2507906 Wrote:
>> Glad that got it working - I’m about 3 weeks into Python myself,
>> finding it to be a very good language to work with.
>>
>>
> +1 - great high-level language! Combine it with C++ and inline assembler
> and you’re unstoppable !
>
> I’ve been tinkering with Python for over two years and you’re telling me
> what to do after your three weeks !
LOL
It has a lot of interesting capabilities - I picked up a couple of the
O’Reilly books, but I asked a developer I’m doing some work with what
he’d use for XML manipulation, and he said Python, so I checked it out.
Took a little bit to remember some of my old OOP programming courses from
college, but things are clicking back into place.
Sounds like you have a similar background in languages to mine - if
you’re doing C++ and inline assembly. I’ve worked in probably a
couple dozen languages over the years, so new languages are just about
picking up syntax for me, in general - but my OOP experience was limited
to very early C++ (when it was translated to C by a precompiler and then
compiled) and Ada pre-Ada95.
I’m really liking the simplicity, flexibility, and extensibility.
I think Python’s implementation of OOP is a little simplistic. For example classes can’t have private member data or protected member functions. Another woeful omission is any equivalent of switch-case branch syntax - the `dictionary method’ is highly restrictive.
Yes :), but I really don’t like the clunky AT&T syntax preferred by the gcc compiler.
Originally I was dragged kicking and screaming into Python after having previously used MATLAB for scientific calculations, since they introduced the numeric package NumPy which accelerates floating point array operations using LAPACK/BLAS. And I haven’t looked back since. I just wonder where the world is going on the use of Python 3…
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 06:36:01 +0000, flymail wrote:
> hendersj;2507917 Wrote:
>> Took a little bit to remember some of my old OOP programming courses
>> from college, but things are clicking back into place.
>
> I think Python’s implementation of OOP is a little simplistic. For
> example classes can’t have private member data or protected member
> functions. Another woeful omission is any equivalent of switch-case
> branch syntax - the `dictionary method’ is highly restrictive.
Yeah, but for a scripting language it’s still not bad. I also ran into
the issue with a lack of switch/case (funny you should mention that, I
had wanted to do that as I evaluated different tags in the input XML
document).
> hendersj;2507917 Wrote:
>> <SNIP>I’m really liking the simplicity, flexibility, and extensibility.
>
> Originally I was dragged kicking and screaming into Python after having
> previously used MATLAB for scientific calculations, since they
> introduced the numeric package NumPy which accelerates floating point
> array operations using LAPACK/BLAS. And I haven’t looked back since. I
> just wonder where the world is going on the use of Python 3…
I had done a little bit of work in XML parsing in AWK - that
was…interesting. <g> What I’ve been doing is taking documentation
written in a doc tool, exported to a variant of docbook, and
restructuring it.
Been an interesting project - and finding good documentation on lxml.etree
has been interesting (the official site isn’t bad, but I’d like to see a
list of all the methods with summaries and examples, and many of the
methods are missing useful examples, I find).
Maybe I’ll have to learn it well enough to write my own book.
!
!
!