Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Robert Kern schrieb: > > To which I say that doing the type-checking and error handling is much > > easier in > > Python than using the C API. Add to that the tediousness of the > > edit-compile-run > > cycle of C and the finickiness of refcounting. > > Sure: edit-compile-run is tedious, but in the given case, it is > necessary anyway. Also, refcounting is finicky, but with ctypes, > you often have to use just as finicky memory management APIs. > (such as using specific allocation and deallocation routines, > or having to do memory management at all when in C you would > do stack allocation). > > My main concern with ctypes is that you have to duplicate > information from the header files, which is error-prone, > especially when the header files may change (either across > versions or across target systems). >
I have looked at: building an extension module, using pyrex and using ctypes. Initially ctypes won because I was under the impression that to use pyrex or build an extension module required the same compiler as python was compiled with. This is not a problem on linux, but under windows this is much too great a problem for potential users (who will also need to compile the module). I now have discovered that I can use mingw32 (without patching) under windows (with python2.5) though I'm not clear if this is by chance or has been implemented as a new feature (can't find suitable documentation). Anyway, at this point I think I will stick with ctypes purely out of simplicity. My c library is for some legacy lab hardware control. I only need to call three functions. With ctypes, I can check the data in python (which I do anyway to validate it) and pass it onto the library in about 10 lines of code. Writing an extension module I believe would be much more difficult. Anyway, Thanks both for your help. John
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
