Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Iff it doesn't use that kinda of "framework" I'm not favoured to merge >> it. > > I differ on that opinion. libparted is a system-level library and does > not deserve to use SWIG at all. The only real way to write python > bindings for something like libparted is to write it by hand in plain > old C. SWIG is great for some high-level libraries like SQLite or > GStreamer, but not for something like libparted. > > Here's how I see it: we make the one-to-one bindings in plain C, like > how it was meant to be done (the "python handbook" way). The OO bindings > can then import that module and can be written in Python itself.
Anant, I just don't see why is bad to use something to make our work easier? If it can't be SWIG, no problem, we can choose another tool for it or even write something that grab a description file and write the code for us or something like it. If it'll be one-to-one mapping it shouldn't be impossible to do. Looks very impressive to me the http://www.swig.org/tutorial.html and simple to maintain and extend. Why do you think that is too bad to have swig being used for it? -- O T A V I O S A L V A D O R --------------------------------------------- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br --------------------------------------------- "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
