Nick Craig-Wood n...@craig-wood.com writes:
Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
Hrvoje Niksic schrieb:
Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de writes:
The answer is easy: if you use C, you can use ctypes to create a
wrapper - with pure python, no compilation, no platform issues.
Hrvoje Niksic schrieb:
Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de writes:
The answer is easy: if you use C, you can use ctypes to create a
wrapper - with pure python, no compilation, no platform issues.
The last part is not true. ctypes doesn't work on 64-bit
architectures, nor does it work when
Christian Heimes schrieb:
Hrvoje Niksic schrieb:
Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de writes:
The answer is easy: if you use C, you can use ctypes to create a
wrapper - with pure python, no compilation, no platform issues.
The last part is not true. ctypes doesn't work on 64-bit
Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
Hrvoje Niksic schrieb:
Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de writes:
The answer is easy: if you use C, you can use ctypes to create a
wrapper - with pure python, no compilation, no platform issues.
The last part is not true. ctypes doesn't
argo...@gmail.com schrieb:
When creating a Python binding to a C or C++ library, which is easier
to wrap, the C lib or the C++ one? Given a choice, if you had to
choose between using one of two libs, one written in C, the other in C+
+ -- both having approximately the same functionality -- which
On Feb 14, 12:14 pm, Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de wrote:
The answer is easy: if you use C, you can use ctypes to create a wrapper
- with pure python, no compilation, no platform issues.
Which IMHO makes a strong point for C - if you need OO, it's bolted on
easily using Python itself,
Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de writes:
The answer is easy: if you use C, you can use ctypes to create a
wrapper - with pure python, no compilation, no platform issues.
The last part is not true. ctypes doesn't work on 64-bit
architectures, nor does it work when Python is built with
Hrvoje Niksic schrieb:
Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de writes:
The answer is easy: if you use C, you can use ctypes to create a
wrapper - with pure python, no compilation, no platform issues.
The last part is not true. ctypes doesn't work on 64-bit
architectures, nor does it work
When creating a Python binding to a C or C++ library, which is easier
to wrap, the C lib or the C++ one? Given a choice, if you had to
choose between using one of two libs, one written in C, the other in C+
+ -- both having approximately the same functionality -- which would
you rather deal with
When creating a Python binding to a C or C++ library, which is easier
to wrap, the C lib or the C++ one? Given a choice, if you had to
choose between using one of two libs, one written in C, the other in C+
+ -- both having approximately the same functionality -- which would
you rather deal
++
code *could* also be staightforward... Are there many pitfalls when
having to map C++'s notion of OO to Python?
You're asking two separate questions here.
(1) For Python bindings, is it easier to wrap C, or C++ libraries?
As Daniel points out, C is easier to wrap because CPython itself is
written
11 matches
Mail list logo
