I use that by default for compiling Python bindings. It should not make any
difference for just a single file (including this testcase), but I found that
it yields consistently smaller shared libraries when dealing with lots of
compilation units.
Wenzel
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Neal Beck
his point of view.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Francesco.
>
> On 18 October 2015 at 14:56, Wenzel Jakob <mailto:wen...@inf.ethz.ch>> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> after being a long-time Boost.Python user, I’ve been working on an
> alternative that makes more effective use of r
ort for custom converters and cross-module type
> conversion, which I didn't see mentioned in the docs (though I just skimmed
> them). Are you using the same sort of global registry Boost.Python used? If
> so, I'm curious how that works with a header-only library.
>
>
different
internal design decisions, which would likely break existing software that
ventures beyond the basic .def() syntax.
Cheers,
Wenzel
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Trigve Siver via Cplusplus-sig
> wrote:
>
>> ____
>> From: Wenzel Ja
Hello all,
after being a long-time Boost.Python user, I’ve been working on an alternative
that makes more effective use of recent C++11-capable compilers. The overall
syntax and ideology are very similar to Boost.Python, but the implementation
only requires a few header files with a a vastly sm
