Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> My current stance is therefore that I think we should *not* try to >> make >> sense of what C++ declarations would mean in Cython, but rather >> make it >> easy to write Cythonic wrappers for C++ code. >> >> But then you need to be able to call the operators in C++ somehow, to >> create the wrapper, as there often is no other way of calling them. >> The >> problem is that C++ is so powerful and people do use that power. >> >> So my/current thoughts (though Robert and Danilo are calling the >> shots) >> is along the lines of allowing inline C++ code. The declared interface >> must be Cythonic, but you can use C++ in the bridge in the C++. >> Ugly but >> effective. > > My first impression is that this is basically a more structured > version of the string-substitution way of wrapping C++ that we are > trying to get away from.
Good observation. I now believe strongly that it has merits though: It allows one to skip the whole issue by keeping Cython semantics in Cython and C++ semantics in C++. I'm sure noone asked for it, but even so here's my draft on how I'd like to see C++ support. http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/inlinecpp Note: a) It has many uses outside of C++ wrapping as well b) It is probably easier to implement than anything else we could come up with (not that that is a deciding factor) c) By its hacky nature, it gives full support at once rather than covering case-by-case Think about being the author of a C++ library wanting to wrap it in Cython -- would this be so bad? -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
