Travis E. Oliphant schrieb:
As I unification mechanism, I think it is insufficient. I doubt it can express all the concepts that ctypes supports.
Please clarify what you mean.
Are you saying that a single object can't carry all the information about binary data that ctypes allows with it's multi-object approach?
I'm not sure what you mean by "single object". If I use the tuple syntax, e.g.
There are also multiple objects (the float, the 3, and the 2). You get a single "root" object back, but so do you in ctypes.
But this isn't really what I meant. Instead, I think the PEP lacks various concepts from C data types, such as pointers, unions, function pointers, alignment/packing.
In the mean-time, how are other packages supposed to communicate binary information about data with each other?
This is my other question. Why should they?
Remember the context that the data-format object is presented in. Two packages need to share a chunk of memory (the package authors do not know each other and only have and Python as a common reference). They both want to describe that the memory they are sharing has some underlying binary structure.
Can you please give an example of such two packages, and an application that needs them share data?