On 4/1/2014 11:52 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jacob Peck <gatesph...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're not mistaken, but it also works in reverse -- i.e. it exposes python
code to C, and C code to python... or at least it did years ago when I used
it last.
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but perhaps I am
mis-remembering the conclusions.
Iirc, the earlier conclusions was that creating a static lib was going
to inhibit work on Leo, and for that reason wasn't too interesting.
Ville argued against libraries/pyrex etc., and I agreed, perhaps
because it meant less work for me ;-)
Creating a library commits us, in some sense, to an api. In the case
of Leo's core that api changes only very slowly, and in any case it's
possible to adapt to changing api's, so maybe that's not a big
objection.
I'm open to further discussion, but I don't think this likely to make
Leo much more popular. Do we really expect such a library to make a
big impact in emacs or vim?
Otoh, creating packages for Leo would have a big immediate impact.
Edward
I wasn't arguing for a libleo, just pointing out tools :)
I'm personally happy with a Python-only Leo.
-->Jake
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
