On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 31, 10:47 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I take the freedom to do so as I see fit - this is usenet... > > Fine, then keep beating a dead horse by replying to this thread with > things that do nobody any good. It seems like there are a lot better > way to waste time, though. > > The Python/C API can get me back further without reliance on third- > party libraries than ctypes. It also isn't subject to the quirks that > ctypes is on platforms other than Windows (the target application runs > on Windows, Mac, and eventually Linux once the original distributor > has drivers for the device). I'm not even sure ctypes could load the > lib/driver the distributor packaged. > Ctypes works fine on many platforms. Since you didn't even know about ctypes until you were told about it, don't you think it's a little premature to be speculating about problems you haven't actually experienced?
> So really, I appreciate the option in ctypes, it's good stuff. But > it's not for this project. > It's actually perfectly suited, but you're (I'm assuming) and adult and can make your own decisions... > Once again, the original question stands for anyone who has experience > with the Python/C API callbacks. > -- If you know how to write a callback in C, you know how to do it with Python/C. It's not real flexible if the callback API you're using doesn't include user data, and it looks like it doesn't. Ctypes can generate dynamic thunks and therefore will let you use any Python object as a callback. It's a lot more flexible and it's a lot easier to not write your own thunk generation in C. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
