Python Extension Designer / Builder.

[Karl M. Syring]

"Skip Montanaro" <skip at pobox.com> schrieb
>
>     Gustavo> You hit the nail on the head; I didn't actually know *why*
SWIG
>     Gustavo> seemed to me backwards, but it gave me an ugly gut feeling
>     Gustavo> everytime I sat down to use it.  But, having the code
generator
>     Gustavo> in python, it's much easier to work with, and control.
>
> The big win with SWIG is that one description can be reused for multiple
> language wrappers.
>
>     Gustavo> My idea of using XML as a description language is that,
>     Gustavo> first, it's already a standard for metadata representation.
>
> XML is fine I suppose if you have a GUI to generate it, but if you want to
> edit the description using a plain old text editor, having it in a format
> like SWIG's .i file or Gtk's s-expressions makes more sense to me.

This is beyond my mental capacity. Why must you use XML if you could write
the description in Python?

Karl M. Syring