My two cents:- Brian got the big one: boost allows you to produce pythonic
bindings and, as long as you're doing them at the same time you are writing the
original code it's not that big of a deal to write the wrappers by hand.- Back
when I started this SWIG was a complete disaster in terms of h
You can always just ask...
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM +0100, "David Cosgrove"
wrote:
Ok, I'm convinced. I assumed there was probably a good reason, but sometimes
it's worth asking the question just in case. I'm not anti boost, but, as with
many of their libraries I have look
Ok, I'm convinced. I assumed there was probably a good reason, but
sometimes it's worth asking the question just in case. I'm not anti boost,
but, as with many of their libraries I have looked at, I found the
documentation impenetrable at first reading. I will persevere.
Cheers,
Dave
On Thu, 1 De
One big thing on pros side: boost::python supports serialization natively,
and SWIG does not.
Pozdrawiam, | Best regards,
Maciek Wójcikowski
mac...@wojcikowski.pl
2016-12-01 20:46 GMT+01:00 Gianluca Sforna :
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Brian Kelley wrote:
> > Having used both, I th
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Brian Kelley wrote:
> Having used both, I think that boost wrappers are far more pythonic, compile
> faster, do docstrings better and finally handle exceptions between c++ and
> Python far better.
>
> The downside is that when you get a compile error, it is severa
I expect the technical reason is that the boost wrapping was done well in
advance of the swig.
Having used both, I think that boost wrappers are far more pythonic, compile
faster, do docstrings better and finally handle exceptions between c++ and
Python far better.
The downside is that when yo
Hi All,
Having failed miserably to understand boost::python last week when trying
to add some new functions, I am wondering if there's a technical reason to
prefer it over swig? Given there are swig wrappings for java and c#, it
feels logical to do the python wrapping that way as well. It would r