>>>>> "AMK" == Andrew Kuchling <akuchlin@mems-exchange.org> writes: AMK> On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 11:56:05AM -0400, Fred L. Drake, AMK> 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. AMK> It's not; in fact, db_wrap.c is SWIG-generated code while the AMK> old bsddb module was a hand-written extension. Is it OK to add AMK> a SWIG-generated module to the core? (I have an irrational AMK> dislike SWIG's trick of encoding pointers as strings, because AMK> it provides a way to deliberately engineer core dumps; it's AMK> just sort of unsettling.) Indeed! The stock SWIG produces dangerous code for pointers and inefficient code for returning multiple values. The code it produces is hard to read at least in part because it is indented incorrectly. I don't think any of these features are acceptable for a core module. I have some patches and typemaps for SWIG that do a better job, but it's still not great. If people are interested, I can post to the list. The two primary changes are to use PyCObjects for pointers and to generate better code for returning tuples. (The current code generates a return tuple incrementally; for each value, it creates a new tuple and appends it to the old return value.) Jeremy PS Andrew: The patched version of SWIG might still be installed in the depot at CNRI. You could try it out.
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