On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Hello. > >> > > >> > I would like to discuss on the language summit a potential inclusion > >> > of cffi[1] into stdlib. > >> > >> I think cffi is well worth considering as a possible inclusion for > >> Python 3.4. (In particular, I'm a fan of the fact it just uses C > >> syntax to declare what you're trying to talk to) > > > > > > I'm cautiously +0.5 because I'd really like to see a strong comparison > case > > being made vs. ctypes. I've used ctypes many times and it was easy and > > effortless (well, except the segfaults when wrong argument types are > > declared :-). I'll be really interesting in seeing concrete examples that > > demonstrate how CFFI is superior. > > My main issue with ctypes, other than confusing API, which is up to > taste, is that you just cannot wrap some libraries, like OpenSSL > because of API vs ABI. OpenSSL uses macros extensively. Another point > is that even C POSIX stdlib gives you incomplete structs and you have > to guess where to put what fields. > Yep, I can think of some reasons too. But just mentioning it so you remember explicitly listing the advantages when it comes to writing a PEP or some other sort of formal proposal. An FWIW, I think there's already enough positive feedback to at least start drafting a PEP. It can always be rejected later ;-) Eli
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
