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

Re: Python 3 Bindings Query

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:11:37 +0100

Troy Curtis Jr wrote:
>>> 2. Do you want to pick up 'py3c' as a new dep, or implement the
>>> handful of necessary wrappers?
>> I don't know the swig-py bindings well enough to answer that.  I guess
>> it depends on how much a "handful" would be. [...]
> I'll default to not pulling it in, I don't think it is really needed.
> But I try to default to resisting the "Not Invented Here" tendency.
> However, adding a new dep, especially for so little gain, probably
> doesn't make sense IMHO.  The converse is that while some of the calls
> might not be currently used, later additions might [...]

My two cents, from the sidelines: use py3c's solutions; I don't mind how.

I second your "resist NIH" attitude. I have little experience of Swig
and none of py3c, but assuming py3c is good I would like us to default
to using py3c solutions, so that our results are more likely to be easy
to integrate with other code and more likely to be familiar to another
Python programmer, use techniques known to have been tested in other
projects, and so on.

How you get the py3c definitions into Subversion -- copying just the
definitions we currently will use, or the whole set of headers, or even
picking up a system-installed version -- I don't mind. Do what seems
best to you.

Hopefully that's more or less what you were thinking anyway; I just
wasn't quite clear what you meant by "adding a new dep... probably
doesn't make sense".

- Julian
Received on 2017-10-18 11:11:41 CEST

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