+1 on the MC++, this seems like an ideal use of it. 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
