On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > I would like to discuss on the language summit a potential inclusion
>> > of cffi[1] into stdlib.
>> I think cffi is well worth considering as a possible inclusion for
>> Python 3.4. (In particular, I'm a fan of the fact it just uses C
>> syntax to declare what you're trying to talk to)
> I'm cautiously +0.5 because I'd really like to see a strong comparison case
> being made vs. ctypes. I've used ctypes many times and it was easy and
> effortless (well, except the segfaults when wrong argument types are
> declared :-). I'll be really interesting in seeing concrete examples that
> demonstrate how CFFI is superior.

My main issue with ctypes, other than confusing API, which is up to
taste, is that you just cannot wrap some libraries, like OpenSSL
because of API vs ABI. OpenSSL uses macros extensively. Another point
is that even C POSIX stdlib gives you incomplete structs and you have
to guess where to put what fields.

Yep, I can think of some reasons too. But just mentioning it so you remember explicitly listing the advantages when it comes to writing a PEP or some other sort of formal proposal. An FWIW, I think there's already enough positive feedback to at least start drafting a PEP. It can always be rejected later ;-)