[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Python bindings

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-04-20 23:57:14 CEST

Lele Gaifax wrote:
>>>>>>"Daniel" == Daniel L Rall <dlr@apache.org> writes:
> Daniel> C. Michael Pilato wrote: ...
> >> I think the fact that would benefit only the Python side of
> >> things is non-negligible downside.
> Daniel> ...
> Daniel> This is an important point. What about all the other
> Daniel> languages which SWIG supports? Sharing the core of the
> Daniel> bindings implementation across languages is powerful
> Daniel> reuse.
> As said, I second that. But when it comes to effectively weighting
> the hassle/benefit ratio, I think that other more specific ways of
> laying down the bindings would make them a) more powerfull and b)
> maintainable.

a) is debatable -- I might be convinced to agree, cmpilato perhaps not so much.

b) may be true, but the SWIG bindings are maintainable too.

> But even then, saying that there is an effective code sharing between
> the bindings is a bit optimistic: the hardest part /introduced/ by
> SWIG is that you need go and implement a wrapper for each object / for
> each language.

See a) -- this is debatable. In any case, the amount and type of code involved
with that layer borders is not overly significant.

> Yes, the /declarations/ are in common, but the hard
> work of dealing with arguments-transformer-function coupled with
> this-and-that function signature is a pita.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 20 23:58:51 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.