Whether SWIG will work in a "no brainer" way or not depends on the original code, I think. If the original code uses a very convoluted design, of course things will get hairy. If the package uses a very clean structure, I think you will find SWIG works out very nicely.
The intriguing things is, however, once you structure the package to a form SWIG would work, it opens up the door to support multiple script languages (and they have a long list of supported script languages). If you hand crafted it to run the Python-C API, then you can only use Python as script. -- It's me "Keith Dart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > It's me wrote: > > "It's me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>I am playing around with SWING building a Python module using the no > > > > brainer > > > >>example in http://www.swig.org/tutorial.html. With that first example, > >> > > > > > > Oops! Soapy fingers. "SWIG" - not "SWING". > > > > -- > > It's me. > > I have used SWIG before, and it's not always such a "no-brainer". In > fact, it rarely is except for trivial examples. But it can work. I think > it is best suited for wrapping large libraries. For small stuff, it > would be better to just do it "manually" using the Python C API. > > > Good luck. > > -- > It's not me. > > > > > -- > \/ \/ > (O O) > -- --------------------oOOo~(_)~oOOo-------------------------------------- -- > Keith Dart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > public key: ID: F3D288E4 > ============================================================================ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
