Hi Ravi Thanks for your reply.
> Yes. PyOGRE or cctbx are excellent exmples of larger projects which use > boost.python. You may want to use py++ to automate binding generation to > save yourself quite some time. Ok, I will look at py++. > No. The python modules can be compiled using regular make. My > recommendation > is to avoid using bjam, even if it is technically superior, as it is not > used > widely enough to have the critical mass that other tools (autotools, cmake, > scons) have which means that finding help is pretty painful (as there seem > to > be only a couple of people with knowledge sufficient to answer any non- > trivial > questions). Understood. Though the boost community seems to promote bjam quite hard ;-) > These are simply shared libraries (on POSIX). So the linker can read them. > Avoid storing the python bindings in the same shared libraries as your > core code since the coupling will be hard to undo while gaining nothing. So, I should make both normal dll's for the C++ application and .pyd extensions for the Python interface? Best regards David _______________________________________________ Cplusplus-sig mailing list Cplusplus-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
