swig & Python question

It's me itsme at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 11 19:33:45 CET 2004


Whether SWIG will work in a "no brainer" way or not depends on the original
code, I think.  If the original code uses a very convoluted design, of
course things will get hairy.   If the package uses a very clean structure,
I think you will find SWIG works out very nicely.

The intriguing things is, however, once you structure the package to a form
SWIG would work, it opens up the door to support multiple script languages
(and they have a long list of supported script languages).

If you hand crafted it to run the Python-C API, then you can only use Python
as script.

--
It's me


"Keith Dart" <kdart at kdart.com> wrote in message
news:41BAD6F0.6020509 at kdart.com...
> It's me wrote:
> > "It's me" <itsme at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:oDStd.31076$zx1.23489 at newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>I am playing around with SWING building a Python module using the no
> >
> > brainer
> >
> >>example in http://www.swig.org/tutorial.html.   With that first example,
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oops!  Soapy fingers.   "SWIG" - not "SWING".
> >
> > --
> > It's me.
>
> I have used SWIG before, and it's not always such a "no-brainer". In
> fact, it rarely is except for trivial examples. But it can work. I think
> it is best suited for wrapping large libraries. For small stuff, it
> would be better to just do it "manually" using the Python C API.
>
>
> Good luck.
>
> --
> It's not me.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>                             \/ \/
>                             (O O)
> -- --------------------oOOo~(_)~oOOo--------------------------------------
--
> Keith Dart <kdart at kdart.com>
> public key: ID: F3D288E4
>
============================================================================





More information about the Python-list mailing list