Are Steps() bindings consistent?

[eisenhauer]

I was looking at an old issue #987 about Python Steps() and trying to figure out if it was outdated. I suspect so, but I noticed what may be an inconsistency. In Py11Variable.cpp, the Steps() and StepsStart() functions are implemented like this:

size_t Variable::Steps() const
{
    helper::CheckForNullptr(m_VariableBase, "in call to Variable::Steps");
    return m_VariableBase->m_StepsCount;
}

size_t Variable::StepsStart() const
{
    helper::CheckForNullptr(m_VariableBase, "in call to Variable::StepsStart");
    return m_VariableBase->m_StepsStart;
}

but in the C++ bindings the use a different member variable:

    template <>                                                                                    \
    size_t Variable<T>::Steps() const                                                              \
    {                                                                                              \
        helper::CheckForNullptr(m_Variable, "in call to Variable<T>::Steps");                      \
        return m_Variable->m_AvailableStepsCount;                                                  \
    }                                                                                              \
                                                                                                   \
    template <>                                                                                    \
    size_t Variable<T>::StepsStart() const                                                         \
    {                                                                                              \
        helper::CheckForNullptr(m_Variable, "in call to Variable<T>::StepsStart");                 \
        return m_Variable->m_AvailableStepsStart;                                                  \
    }  

Which is right? I suspect the Python bindings are broken because it looks like m_StepsCount/Start are set in SetStepSelection(), so that would have just come from the application, no reason for a Steps() call to retrieve it. This needs to be fixed and probably the python bindings gone over with a fine-toothed comb...