[Guido, about Inline] > If the alternative is writing an extension module, the inline approach > sounds viable to me. > > I could also imagine auto-wrapping existing C functions based on > parseable function signatures. I believe VB supports this. > Dangerous, but powerful, and very useful in the right hands. Isn't this the calldll approach? > It seems to me that the important idea here is to break away from > building and distributing a separate extension module, which gets you > in the edit-compile-link-test-run loop that Python tries to avoid. > Rather than requiring an expert who knows how to download, build, > install and use SWIG or how to write Python extensions, all the > expertise is automated. > > Getting this to work on Windows for the average Windows user would be > a big hassle, limiting the portability and therefore the usefulness. My prototype writes a xxx.c file, and uses distutils to build an extension module of it. The only requirement is a working VC++ compiler. Thomas
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