On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 4:11 AM Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Troy Curtis Jr wrote: > >>> 2. Do you want to pick up 'py3c' as a new dep, or implement the > >>> handful of necessary wrappers? > >> > >> I don't know the swig-py bindings well enough to answer that. I guess > >> it depends on how much a "handful" would be. [...] > > > > I'll default to not pulling it in, I don't think it is really needed. > > But I try to default to resisting the "Not Invented Here" tendency. > > However, adding a new dep, especially for so little gain, probably > > doesn't make sense IMHO. The converse is that while some of the calls > > might not be currently used, later additions might [...] > > My two cents, from the sidelines: use py3c's solutions; I don't mind how. > > I second your "resist NIH" attitude. I have little experience of Swig > and none of py3c, but assuming py3c is good I would like us to default > to using py3c solutions, so that our results are more likely to be easy > to integrate with other code and more likely to be familiar to another > Python programmer, use techniques known to have been tested in other > projects, and so on. > > How you get the py3c definitions into Subversion -- copying just the > definitions we currently will use, or the whole set of headers, or even > picking up a system-installed version -- I don't mind. Do what seems > best to you. > > Hopefully that's more or less what you were thinking anyway; I just > wasn't quite clear what you meant by "adding a new dep... probably > doesn't make sense". > > - Julian > You weren't clear because I kept waffling back and forth about which direction I think it should go. Sorry for the indecision :) It is a header only library so it is actually only a build time dep, and appears to be readily available in various Linux distro repositories. I'll take a look at how you are handling deps and start my efforts there. Troy >
