[C++-sig] swig?

Petrucio petrucio at hoplon.com
Thu Nov 10 20:20:44 CET 2005


Not sure, since I don't usually use smart pointers. See
http://www.swig.org/Doc1.3/Python.html#Python_nn27

At 14:05 10/11/2005, you wrote:
>Is it in SWIG possible to have smart pointers that holds objects of exported
>classes?
>
>/Tomas
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Petrucio" <petrucio at hoplon.com>
>To: "Development of Python/C++ integration" <c++-sig at python.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [C++-sig] swig?
>
>
> > In my experience, the compilation of the SWIG wrappers is much, much
>faster
> > than compilation of the boost.python wrappers. The source of errors in
> > compilation is also easier to track down, since there's little or no
> > templates used in SWIG wrappers.
> >
> > SWIG is also easier to set up and use, you usually need much less
> > declarations of what you want to export, even less than when using Pyste.
> >
> > It also has a lot of pre-built typemaps that save you a lot of time
> > depending on what you want to export, for instance when dealing with
> > pointer to basic types, SWIG has an easy solution for that in a typemap,
>in
> > contrast to exporting those using boost.python, wich is not something you
> > look forward to.
> >
> > In the other hand, boost.python is more robust. I lack the memory to give
> > you specific examples, but there's some stupid things that SWIG does that
> > will blow your mind. Boost.python is also more 'purist', in some sense.
>But
> > since practicality beats purity, I'm more of a SWIG guy.
> >
> > I made a few performance tests, and expected boost.python to be a clear
> > favorite here, but there were not much diference between the two, if I
> > remember correctly.
> >
> > I made a lot of other comparisons between the two, but the results are not
> > in this computer. I'll send them some other day, if I remember to get
>them.
> >
> > ---
> > Fabio 'Petrucio' Stange - Game Programmer
> > Hoplon Infotainment - www.taikodom.com
> >
> >
> > At 10:14 10/11/2005, you wrote:
> > >I noticed that recent versions of swig have quite significantly advanced
>the
> > >support for c++.  I wonder if anyone has experience they can share,
> > >regarding a comparison of boost::python with a recent swig.
> > >
> > >I have been using boost::python for some time, but am interested in
> > >considering swig, because in my present environment, it would be easier
>for
> > >me to deploy code using swig.
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >C++-sig mailing list
> > >C++-sig at python.org
> > >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/c++-sig
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > C++-sig mailing list
> > C++-sig at python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/c++-sig
>
>_______________________________________________
>C++-sig mailing list
>C++-sig at python.org
>http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/c++-sig




More information about the Cplusplus-sig mailing list