[Python-Dev] cffi in stdlib

[Eli Bendersky]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at 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 ;-)

Eli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130226/4ed92057/attachment.html>