"Nigel Rantor" <w...@wiggly.org> wrote: > Well, why not have a look at Gabriel's response.
I have, and have responded at some length, further explaining what I am doing, and why. > That seems like a much more portable way of doing it if nothing else. There is nothing portable in what I am doing - it is aimed at the eBox, as the i/o stuff is specific to the Vortex processor. Even without the can and uncan, if you were to try to run it on any other machine, it would segfault because of the underlying C routines called via ctypes to access the non standard parallel port. > I'm not trolling, you just seem to be excited about something that > sounds like a fundamentally bad idea. Glad to hear it, and I am aware of the dangers, but I am aiming at a very specific speed objective, and I really cannot think of a way that achieves the result in fewer machine cycles than this weird way of passing an object, in a case such as mine. (barring of course writing the whole thing in C, which would never get the job done in time) - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
