On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 02:03:21PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > When we last discussed this subject, there was general support for the > functionality, but a couple of people went "bletch!" about SWIG-generated > code (there was unhappiness about pointers being treated as strings). > > Somebody said something about having SWIG patches to address this. Is this > the only real issue with SWIG-generated code? If so, we can pursue two paths: > (1) Hand Greg a patched SWIG so he can release a 2.1.2 version of the DB > extension that meets our cleanliness criteria, and (2) press the SWIG guy > to incorporate these patches in his next release. I'm not surprised to see the "bletch!" for SWIG's string/pointer things, they are technically gross. Anyone know what SWIG v1.3a3 does (v1.3 is a total rewrite from v1.1)? py-bsddb3 as distributed was build using SWIG v1.1-883. In the meantime, if someone knows of a version of SWIG that does this better, try using it to build bsddb3 (just pass a SWIG=/usr/spam/eggs/bin/swig to the Makefile). If you run into problems, send them and a copy of that swig my way. I'll take a quick look at SWIG v1.3alpha3 here and see what that does. Greg
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4