27 February 2013 18:24, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 February 2013 11:53, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com> wrote: >> I think it means you can't use the ABI version and specify the calling >> convention. It's a reasonable bug report (the calling convention on >> API version works though) > > That would be a deal-breaker for my use case of quick scripts working > with the Windows API on a machine with no C compiler. I'd have to use > ctypes in that case until cffi had this feature. One other use case for the ABI level over the API level - the ABI level (no C extension) can be used across Python versions, where the API level needs a separate compiled extension per Python version. This can be a big deal on Windows at least, where users (not developers) with no compilers on their systems are common. I'm not trying to argue against cffi, just pointing out some cases that should be considered. Paul
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