From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-25 21:49:48
From: David Abrahams <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dan_at_[hidden]>
> > I looked at it, and I tried converting a few small pieces from CXX 4.2
> > sourceforge, Python-C++ connection) to your library, and yours is just
> > harder to use.
> !!! Man, that was fast !!!
> It's also strange. I've been in communication with Barry Scott, the CXX
> maintainer about this technology. He expressed great interest, in part
> because it seemed to make some things much easier. One big advantage over
> what's available in CXX is that you don't have to do manual function
> argument conversion. Another is that you can override your C++ class'
> virtual functions in Python.
> > Then again, I use CXX extensively inside our app (a
> > Development environment) to expose pieces to python,
> Cool! I've always thought that more applications should be scriptable. Now
> that I've found Python, I know *what* they should be scripted with.
I recall considering Python as an extension language for XVT back in
80-something, but going with Scheme instead. I still like Scheme for
> > so maybe i'm just
> > biased having used it more.
> Maybe. Or maybe you were looking at the wrong part of the py_cpp code?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk