[IronPython] Announcement: Project to get some CPython C extensions running under IronPython
dinov at exchange.microsoft.com
Sat Oct 13 01:38:20 CEST 2007
+1 on the MC++, this seems like an ideal use of it.
From: users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com [mailto:users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Curt Hagenlocher
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:38 AM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] Announcement: Project to get some CPython C extensions running under IronPython
On 10/12/07, Giles Thomas <giles.thomas at resolversystems.com<mailto:giles.thomas at resolversystems.com>> wrote:
What is the best architecture? We're thinking of this as being a bit of C# managed code to interface with the C extension, and a thin Python wrapper on top. The module's existing C extension and Python code would "sandwich" this layer. Let us know if this is a silly idea :-)
My two cents would be this: using Managed C++, try for source compatibility first. It will almost certainly be less work than binary compatibility -- especially given your restricted test case -- and you're not likely to do much coding that wouldn't be needed for binary compatibility anyway.
curt at hagenlocher.org<mailto:curt at hagenlocher.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ironpython-users