Carl Friedrich Bolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Hudson wrote:
> > Have you seen Armin's autoctypes?
> >
> > https://codespeak.net/viewvc/user/arigo/hack/pypy-hack/autoctypes/
> >
> > Scary code, and a rather different approach :-)
>
> and it does not work for wrapping C++ code, right?
Well, I don't know; it works by compiling snippets of C++ so maybe it
has a chance...
> >> It seems kind of strange to say that PyPy can't be practical without
> >> implementing the CPython extension API, since to my knowledge IronPython
> >> will not implement it (and Jython never has) and people are afraid that
> >> IronPython will be such a great Python alternative that it will fragment
> >> the Python community.
> >
> > I don't think anyone has quite claimed that; I thought the claim was
> > that supporting the CPython API would make PyPy a practical platform
> > faster, and it's hard to disagree with that. Whether it's worth the
> > effort involved is another question of course :-)
> >
> > The whole "interacting with the outside world" thing is a, probably
> > /the/, most significant thing between here and a practical PyPy.
> > Currently, there is no such thing as a PyPy extension module, and
> > that's something that will need to change.
>
> Just a small addition, to not have wrong impressions: There _are_ PyPy
> extension modules. They are called mixed modules (since you can mix
> app-level and interpreter-level code in them). It's just that they are
> not really extension modules in the sense that you can compile them
> independently from PyPy and load them as a .so (or whatever) later.
Right yes, that's what I meant, thanks for the clarification. Maybe I
should emphasized the _extension_ part...
Cheers,
mwh
--
I located the link but haven't bothered to re-read the article,
preferring to post nonsense to usenet before checking my facts.
-- Ben Wolfson, comp.lang.python
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
