Re: Update on python-cffi bindings

2017-12-29 Thread Floris Bruynooghe
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 possible

Re: Update on python-cffi bindings

2017-12-21 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
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 possible multi-tiered approach (maybe not as explicit): > > 1 I think it's

Re: Update on python-cffi bindings

2017-12-21 Thread Floris Bruynooghe
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 both

Re: Update on python-cffi bindings

2017-12-18 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
Hi Floris-- On Sun 2017-12-17 19:08:18 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > 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: thanks

Update on python-cffi bindings

2017-12-17 Thread Floris Bruynooghe
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