On 10/13/07, Dino Viehland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 on the MC++, this seems like an ideal use of it. >
Just a little nitpick, hopefully were talking about C++/CLI and not the antique "Managed Extensions for C++" regards, Simon *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Curt Hagenlocher > *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2007 11:38 AM > *To:* Discussion of IronPython > *Subject:* Re: [IronPython] Announcement: Project to get some CPython C > extensions running under IronPython > > > > On 10/12/07, *Giles Thomas* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is the best architecture? We're thinking of this as being a bit of > C# managed code to interface with the C extension, and a thin Python wrapper > on top. The module's existing C extension and Python code would "sandwich" > this layer. Let us know if this is a silly idea :-) > > My two cents would be this: using Managed C++, try for source > compatibility first. It will almost certainly be less work than binary > compatibility -- especially given your restricted test case -- and you're > not likely to do much coding that wouldn't be needed for binary > compatibility anyway. > > > > -- > > Curt Hagenlocher > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.ironpython.com > http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com