Re: [PATCH] NEWS: library changes for 0.26

David Bremner writes: > These are just "my" changes, as arbited by "git shortlog", which > sometimes lies. > --- > NEWS | 21 + > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS > index 3b6404e7..1c5edf4c 100644 > --- a/NEWS > +++ b/NEWS > @@ -41,6 +41,27 @@ Ind

Re: Update on python-cffi bindings

Hi all, Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > On Thu 2017-12-21 12:30:39 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: >> The API changes a lot and there is no easy migration. And history has >> shown that's a terrible way to get something new adopted. Last time I >> suggested a poss

Re: Update on python-cffi bindings

Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > Hi Floris-- > > On Sun 2017-12-17 19:08:18 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > > i've heard reported, and i also appreciate your attention to performance > concerns on different python platforms (e.g. making sure things are > performant on b

Update on python-cffi bindings

Hi all, Thanks for all the feedback on an early post of my CFFI-based libnotmuch Python bindings. I've now completed these somewhat more and they now have most of the functionality. Here's what's new since last time: - All tests pass on Python 3.5, 3.6 and pypy3.5 I could probably add 3.4 as

Re: DRAFT Introduce CFFI-based Python bindings

Florian Klink writes: >>> I guess you'll have to convince the maintainers / users of alot and afew >>> that this makes sense before we go much further. I'd point out that >>> Debian stable is only at python 3.5, so that makes me a bit wary of this >>> (being able to run the test suite on debian s

Re: [PATCH] python: add bindings for notmuch_message_get_propert(y/ies)

Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > On Tue 2017-11-28 23:46:11 +0100, Ruben Pollan wrote: >> Message.get_property (prop) returns a string with the value of the property >> and >> Message.get_properties (prop, exact=False) returns a list [(key, value)] > > This looks like a sensible approach to me. I'

Re: DRAFT Introduce CFFI-based Python bindings

Patrick Totzke writes: > Quoting David Bremner (2017-11-28 23:59:26) >> Floris Bruynooghe writes: >> >> > >> > Lastly there are some downsides to the choices I made: >> > - I ended up going squarely for CPython 3.6+. Choosing Python >> >

Re: DRAFT Introduce CFFI-based Python bindings

David Bremner writes: > Floris Bruynooghe writes: > >> >> Lastly there are some downsides to the choices I made: >> - I ended up going squarely for CPython 3.6+. Choosing Python >> 3 allowed better API design, e.g. with keyword-only parameters >> etc.

[PATCH] Introduce CFFI-based python bindings

From: Floris Bruynooghe This introduces the beginnings of new CFFI-based Python bindings. The bindings aim at: - Better performance on pypy - Easier to use Python-C interface - More "pythonic" - The API should not allow invalid operations - Use native object protocol where possibl

DRAFT Introduce CFFI-based Python bindings

Hi all, Here are the beginnings off CFFI-based Python bindings, rather than the ctypes-based ones currently available. I started this work in order to get faster bindings on pypy since a script of mine was running slower on pypy than CPython. Initially aiming for a drop-in replacement of the exi

<    1   2