On 10 Apr, 2008, at 11:46, has wrote:
On 9 Apr 2008, at 06:56, Ronald Oussoren wrote:On 3 Apr, 2008, at 15:46, has wrote:it would be nice to have complete bindings to the bits of Carbon that still make sense.Yes, although I'd repeat my earlier suggestion that the mosteconomically viable way to provide Carbon bindings would be to createObjC wrappers for the Carbon APIs of interest.I'm far from convinced that this is true.If you use bridgesupport/bgen/whatever to generate ObjC wrappers then ObjC users, Python users, Ruby users, Perl users, etc, etc. all benefit. If you generate Python wrappers, then only Python users benefit
We seem to be agreeing, the bit I'm not convinced about is the "create ObjC wrappers" bit. You don't have to write Objective-C wrappers to use bridgesupport, bridgesupport can easily wrap pure C functions as well. It might be necessary to enhance the bridgesupport format a little to deal with oddities in Carbon APIs and it would obviously be helpfull to cooperate with other bridgesupport users for that.
My guess is that Carbon bindings are a medium-term solution anyway, Apple seems to be moving away from Carbon (as can be seen by the lack of 64-bit Carbon and the deprecation of QuickTime in favour of QTKit).
Ronald
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
