On 8/19/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/19/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Martin, > > > > I've thought about it more, and I think it's fine to use a single > > type. It will surely simplify many things, and that alone might help > > us win back some of the inefficiency this introduces. And it is best > > for Python-level users. > > > Woohoo! I totally support this idea (along with anything else that comes up > to simplify the C API; I almost feel like we need a dumbed-down API along > with the full-powered API behind it). I also support Martin doing the work > =) (but that's mostly because I know he is in a good position to do it > well).
The easiest thing we could do to simplify extension writing would be to supply a script that generates extension source and a setup.py from a generic template. The template would demonstrate the current best practices for defining a function, a constant, an Exception subclass, and a class that wraps a C struct with a method or two. -bob _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
