Python Extension Designer / Builder.

Karl M. Syring syring at email.com
Sun Jan 27 08:56:02 CET 2002


"Skip Montanaro" <skip at pobox.com> schrieb
>
>     Gustavo> You hit the nail on the head; I didn't actually know *why*
SWIG
>     Gustavo> seemed to me backwards, but it gave me an ugly gut feeling
>     Gustavo> everytime I sat down to use it.  But, having the code
generator
>     Gustavo> in python, it's much easier to work with, and control.
>
> The big win with SWIG is that one description can be reused for multiple
> language wrappers.
>
>     Gustavo> My idea of using XML as a description language is that,
>     Gustavo> first, it's already a standard for metadata representation.
>
> XML is fine I suppose if you have a GUI to generate it, but if you want to
> edit the description using a plain old text editor, having it in a format
> like SWIG's .i file or Gtk's s-expressions makes more sense to me.

This is beyond my mental capacity. Why must you use XML if you could write
the description in Python?

Karl M. Syring





More information about the Python-list mailing list