Tristan Seligmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Neal Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-29 14:56:27 -0500]: > >> Sean Lynch wrote: >> >> > Please no. Porting modules to ctypes is well worth the effort because >> > then they will work with Jython and IronPython as well as CPython and >> > PyPy. IMHO the CPython extension API is the "wrong" way to extend Python >> > and has been since the beginning, not least because it assumes >> > implementation details of the interpreter like reference counting, >> > object layout, etc. >> >> I have tons of code using boost::python. Wouldn't it be a lot of work to >> port to ctypes? I'm guessing, it's basically a complete rewrite.
I guess there's a chance that boost::python is sufficiently declarative that you could make code using it work for PyPy too... don't know the details at all though. > Is it even feasible to wrap a C++ library with ctypes? I guess it must be possible -- the name mangling rules aren't that hard, really -- but I don't know about feasible. Oh, hmm, templates. They'd be a pain, wouldn't they :-) Cheers, mwh -- ... but I guess there are some things that are so gross you just have to forget, or it'll destroy something within you. perl is the first such thing I have known. -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
