On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 11:56:05AM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: >module. The existing bsddb module *is* the public interface; if >db_wrap is a direct replacment, it should be called bsddb instead of >_bsddb. It's not; in fact, db_wrap.c is SWIG-generated code while the old bsddb module was a hand-written extension. Is it OK to add a SWIG-generated module to the core? (I have an irrational dislike SWIG's trick of encoding pointers as strings, because it provides a way to deliberately engineer core dumps; it's just sort of unsettling.) --amk
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