Hi, On 10 April 2014 22:12, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree. I'd like to see a clear explanation of what advantages (and > disadvantages!) CFFI gives over ctypes, as well as the plan for > inclusion and how the inevitable confusion over whether to use ctypes > or cffi will be handled. (...) I can't judge exactly what was told in the Language Summit, but here is my own position about CFFI. Code-wise, we're in precisely the same spot as last year. The usage of CFFI seems to be growing a lot. However, it's not in any stdlib-ready state right now. Why not? Because we have a plan to go forward and fix the main issues people seem to be having: when used in "API mode" there is some building-C-sources-and-compiling-them going on under your feet; however, "explicit is better than implicit" seems to apply here too. Thus, it seems that the basic model might be changed toward a variant in which you put your C declarations into some separate file that you need to execute once, in order to build and compile a regular C extension module. This would be superficial, but change the perception of CFFI to be "a preprocessor that produces C extension modules". This affects the "API mode" but not the "ABI mode" (which is basically the same as ctypes, modulo the syntax). A bientôt, Armin.
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