Thanks guys. If we add pybind11 and xtensor, boost.python is also a good contender there.
S. On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 11:51 Hans Dembinski <hans.dembin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Robert, > > > On 17. Aug 2018, at 23:44, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Even if you don't use the numpy-mimicking parts of the xtensor API, > xtensor-python is a probably a net improvement over pybind11 for > communicating arrays back and forth across the C++/Python boundary. Even if > the rest of your C++ code doesn't use xtensor, you could profitably use > xtensor-python at the interface. Also, though the article is generally > framed as using Python as a glue language (i.e. communicating with existing > C/C++/Fortran code), it is also relevant for the use case where you are > writing the C/C++/Fortran code from scratch (perhaps just accelerating > small kernels or whatever). Talking about the available options for that > use case is perfectly on-topic for that article. > > no objections here, xtensor should be highlighted in the pybind11 part for > these reasons. I just think it should not be a separate section. > > Best regards, > Hans > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
