Re: Aw: Status of ctypes-python bindings

2015-02-13 Thread Branko Čibej
On 13.02.2015 13:30, Julian Foad wrote: > Andreas Stieger wrote: >> Branko Čibej wrote: >>> I've been looking at the ctypes-based Python bindings. They're barely >>> maintained; the only changes in the last two years seem to have been >>> minor tweaks to make the tests run. I'm also not aware of an

Re: Aw: Status of ctypes-python bindings

2015-02-13 Thread Julian Foad
Andreas Stieger wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: >> I've been looking at the ctypes-based Python bindings. They're barely >> maintained; the only changes in the last two years seem to have been >> minor tweaks to make the tests run. I'm also not aware of anyone using >> them, or any packager bundling t

Aw: Status of ctypes-python bindings

2015-02-13 Thread Andreas Stieger
Hi, Branko Čibej wrote: > I've been looking at the ctypes-based Python bindings. They're barely > maintained; the only changes in the last two years seem to have been > minor tweaks to make the tests run. I'm also not aware of anyone using > them, or any packager bundling them. > > This was an in

Status of ctypes-python bindings

2015-02-12 Thread Branko Čibej
I've been looking at the ctypes-based Python bindings. They're barely maintained; the only changes in the last two years seem to have been minor tweaks to make the tests run. I'm also not aware of anyone using them, or any packager bundling them. This was an interesting experiment, but I think it'