[IronPython] Announcement: Project to get some CPython C extensions running under IronPython

[Simon Dahlbacka]

On 10/13/07, Dino Viehland <dinov at exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  +1 on the MC++, this seems like an ideal use of it.
>

Just a little nitpick, hopefully were talking about C++/CLI and not the
antique "Managed Extensions for C++"

regards,
Simon

*From:* users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com [mailto:
> users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com] *On Behalf Of *Curt Hagenlocher
> *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2007 11:38 AM
> *To:* Discussion of IronPython
> *Subject:* Re: [IronPython] Announcement: Project to get some CPython C
> extensions running under IronPython
>
>
>
> On 10/12/07, *Giles Thomas* <giles.thomas at resolversystems.com> wrote:
>
> What is the best architecture?  We're thinking of this as being a bit of
> C# managed code to interface with the C extension, and a thin Python wrapper
> on top.  The module's existing C extension and Python code would "sandwich"
> this layer.  Let us know if this is a silly idea :-)
>
> My two cents would be this: using Managed C++, try for source
> compatibility first.  It will almost certainly be less work than binary
> compatibility -- especially given your restricted test case -- and you're
> not likely to do much coding that wouldn't be needed for binary
> compatibility anyway.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Curt Hagenlocher
>
> curt at hagenlocher.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.ironpython.com
> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/ironpython-users/attachments/20071013/75671c28/attachment.html>