Thanks guys.

If we add pybind11 and xtensor, boost.python is also a good contender there.


On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 11:51 Hans Dembinski <> wrote:
Dear Robert,

> On 17. Aug 2018, at 23:44, Robert Kern <> wrote:
> Even if you don't use the numpy-mimicking parts of the xtensor API, xtensor-python is a probably a net improvement over pybind11 for communicating arrays back and forth across the C++/Python boundary. Even if the rest of your C++ code doesn't use xtensor, you could profitably use xtensor-python at the interface. Also, though the article is generally framed as using Python as a glue language (i.e. communicating with existing C/C++/Fortran code), it is also relevant for the use case where you are writing the C/C++/Fortran code from scratch (perhaps just accelerating small kernels or whatever). Talking about the available options for that use case is perfectly on-topic for that article.

no objections here, xtensor should be highlighted in the pybind11 part for these reasons. I just think it should not be a separate section.

Best regards,
NumPy-Discussion mailing list