Shri Borde ha scritto:
See
http://blogs.msdn.com/shrib/archive/2008/07/30/idispatch-support-on-in-ironpython-beta-4.aspx
for the details.
Thank you Shri, i've done some try and this still work well:
IronPython 2.0 (2.0.0.0) on .NET 2.0.50727.1433
Type help, copyright, credits or
António Piteira ha scritto:
I'm sorry, forget what I said... I have done AddReferenceToFile, my
mistake.
But still, what is the output?
None, nothing happens.
Seems that tlbimp hasnot worked well.
how can i test my converted dll ?
thank you
Glauco
Hi everyone,
I am playing around and experimenting with new language features within
IronPython (mainly out of academic interest), and I have been extending
the IronPython compiler/interpreter for this purpose. However, please
keep in mind that I am very new to this, and still don't quite know my
I should point out ahead of time that there's no mmap module in
IronPython at the moment, and so memory-mapped ndarrays don't work yet
-- although most of the usual numpy save/load bits do work, so you'll
probably be fine (unless they're too big to fit in memory).
Dan Shechter wrote:
Here!
What do you mean by 'existing'? Do you want the class definitions which the
current statement is nested in? Do you want to get to an arbitrary class
definition somewhere in the AST?
Currently we don't maintain any of this but there's no reason you couldn't
modify PythonAst.TransformToAst so
I don't know much about remote COM (is that the same as DCOM?). IronPython
supports invocation on OLEAUT objects. It has only minimal support for creating
such objects (via. clr.AddReferenceToTypeLib), and otherwise relies on the user
to create the object using the CLR (Type.GetTypeFromProgID)
Glauco:
1) I don't recall using tlbimp to try to create an EXPorted COM Interop
assembly. I may have my notes incorrect so double check against the
tutorial. I used tlbexp to EXPort the COM Interop assembly into a .NET
2.0 output file. Here's my command line (note: you can get help from
I know :)
I have my own C# Assembly that does mmap() on Windows/Linux with PInvoke.
I did notice though that .NET 4.0 WIll have native support for mmap()
through System.IO.MemoryMappedFiles...
So perhaps IP 2.X will add that as well...
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:15 PM, William Reade
Current thinking is that IronPython 3k will be the 1st version that will take a
dependency on .NET 4.0 so we’ll have to wait until then. Having to rely on
P/Invoke is one of the main reasons we don’t have this yet (IronPython doesn’t
have any p/invokes today and we’d like to avoid them if at
I think that is a great plan. Having no P/Invokes makes it much more
platform agnostic.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Dino Viehland di...@microsoft.com wrote:
Current thinking is that IronPython 3k will be the 1st version that will
take a dependency on .NET 4.0 so we'll have to wait until
I beg to differ...
Ultimately all undelying clr's (ms/mono) rely heavily on p/invoking so
it really boils down to who maintains the low-level bindings...
Ultimately, without pinvokes you wouldn't be able to accomplish
anything...
If I was able to get mmap working on Linux/windows/macosx
That's true, but if the low-level bindings are in the framework
itself, rather than a consumer of the framework, it does make it
easier to port to other platforms which have the same API that wrap
the low-level bindings at the framework level.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Dan Shechter
Where make it easier is really make it an acceptable cost.
While a feature may have taken just a day for you to implement Dan it also has
on-going costs. Every feature inevitably has bugs and those bugs need to be
fixed. If we need to implement both the feature from the Python side plus the
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but the IP team's stance on this is totally
acceptable, I wasn't nudging anyone to do anything.
Personally, I think that such improvements should go into IPCE or some
other community type extensions project.
As we stand today, IP doesn't really work flawlessly on
14 matches
Mail list logo
