I expect the technical reason is that the boost wrapping was done well in advance of the swig.
Having used both, I think that boost wrappers are far more pythonic, compile faster, do docstrings better and finally handle exceptions between c++ and Python far better. The downside is that when you get a compile error, it is several pages long. While doing the same is possible in swig, it would require a serious rewriting that is one whole bunch of "not fun". ---- Brian Kelley > On Dec 1, 2016, at 12:39 PM, David Cosgrove <davidacosgrov...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > Having failed miserably to understand boost::python last week when trying to > add some new functions, I am wondering if there's a technical reason to > prefer it over swig? Given there are swig wrappings for java and c#, it > feels logical to do the python wrapping that way as well. It would remove > some complexity from the maintenance, perhaps. OTOH, if the end result isn't > as good, then that wouldn't be worth it, and I'll just have to try harder > with boost::python. > > Cheers, > Dave > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Rdkit-devel mailing list > Rdkit-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Rdkit-devel mailing list Rdkit-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-devel
