Charles R Harris wrote: > I've been thinking about that a bit. One solution is to have a small > python program that takes all the pieces and writes one big build file, > I think something like that happens now. Another might be to use > includes in a base file; there is nothing sacred about not including .c > files or not putting code in .h files, it is just a convention, we could > even chose another extension. I also wonder if we couldn't just link in > object files. The table of function pointers just needs some addresses > and, while the python convention of hiding all the function names by > using static functions is nice, it is probably not required. Maybe we > could use ctypes in some way? > > I am not pushing any of these alternatives at the moment, just putting > them down. Maybe there are others?
None that I want to think about. #including separate .c files, leaving the extension alone, is best, IMO. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
