[IronPython] Announcement: Project to get some CPython C extensions running under IronPython
simon.dahlbacka at gmail.com
Sat Oct 13 09:34:39 CEST 2007
On 10/13/07, Dino Viehland <dinov at exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> +1 on the MC++, this seems like an ideal use of it.
Just a little nitpick, hopefully were talking about C++/CLI and not the
antique "Managed Extensions for C++"
*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> 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 Hagenlocher
> curt at hagenlocher.org
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.ironpython.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ironpython-users