Python Binding

[Georg Grabler]

You are completely right wihtin this. It's some time i didn't reply, but
i've taken a look on pyrex and swig now which did cost me some time, and
they really make it easier. SWIG provides more possibilities and bindings
for other languages too, though - i must say i've been faster with pyrex,
for some reason it fits me better.

I'd like to use swig, but for some reason i've troubles defining a
completely new type, so a type which is not a wrapper type, but a type
provided to python.

Kind regards,
Georg

Stefan Behnel wrote:

> STiAT wrote:
>> Why do you all suggest other things than the way suggested by python?
> 
> Because going to Paris is not the only way to get french bread?
> 
> Why would you want to write all that ugly glue code by hand that Pyrex
> generates for free? Module descriptors? Class descriptors? Method
> descriptors? Reference counting? That's what Pyrex saves you from.
> Honestly.
> 
> From what I read in your mail, that's exactly the kind of thing you're
> having trouble with. Wouldn't you prefer concentrating on your real code
> instead?
> 
> 
>> I havn't got a real problem writing the code in C, actually, it looked
>> as if it would give me several possibilities i wouldn't have with
>> pyrex (like binding more library functions to one provided python
>> function and so on).
> 
> No idea what you mean in your parentheses, but I don't think there are
> many "possibilities" you "wouldn't have with Pyrex".
> 
> We used Pyrex to write lxml, a wrapper around the huge API of libxml2 and
> libxslt. It's some 11000 lines of Pyrex code by now, but the generated C
> code is some 67000 lines in total. Even if it's somewhat verbose and
> generic in places, I wouldn't have wanted to write that by hand.
> 
> Stefan