Re: Python bindings

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> writes:

    Ben> What you're not accounting for is that while specific
    Ben> implementation details may differ many of the problems
    Ben> encountered by the Python bindings are identical to the
    Ben> problems encountered by the Perl bindings.

What I'm stating is that Perl and Python are different enough to
warrant a different implementation of the bindings. I still think
that the benefit of using swig with Python is very debatable, while I
know that it's a must for practical reasons in the Perl world.

    Ben> I've often found it useful to look at the Python bindings to
    Ben> figure out how they dealt with a problem.

You are lucky: I see me doing the exact opposite... and Perl's API is
somewhat more tricky than Python's...

    Ben> In many cases what we have to do implemented in psuedo code
    Ben> is identical, differing only by the calls to different
    Ben> functions in APIs provided by the languages we're using.

Ben, I see that's almost impossible to push my arguments, since I feel
that we do not share a common view on the "shape" the bindings could
have. I'm more biased toward a high level approach rather than a mere
one-to-one mapping between Python and C API, as I do not think that's
what a Python developer like to use. Given that apparently Pyrex will
give me the opportunity of easily building a OO layer with a clear,
simpler and more direct connection to the C internals, that's where
I'll spend my time on, whenever I'll get some.

ciao, lele.

-- 
nickname: Lele Gaifax	| Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri
real: Emanuele Gaifas	| comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia.
email: lele@seldati.it	|		-- Fortunato Depero, 1929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org