Gabriel Genellina wrote: > En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:28:54 -0300, hg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > >> Mandus wrote: >>> 8 Mar 2007 22:04:48 -0800 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >>>> I'm considering about generating some Python Bindings for C++ >>>> libraries. What are considered the best tools for doing something like >>>> this? I know that there are SWIG, SIP, Boost.Python, and GCC_XML. >>> >>> We are doing this quite extensively at work, and have found that in the >>> long run SWIG is the best solution. OMMV, but if you ask me, the answer >>> is SWIG. >> >> Why do you think it is better than ctypes ? > > I won't say SWIG is better than anything, but how would you use ctypes to > create an instance of a class with several levels of inheritance, and then > invoke a virtual method? > You have to mangle all the names (not too bad, can be done in Python > following the rules) but you also need to find the right function pointer > in the virtual method table; and that can't be done without processing the > source code (at least the .h) in order to know the layout and ordering of > the methods. > Let alone inline functions, templates and #define macros. > > -- > Gabriel Genellina
I'm not very familiar with the technology as I just have had to modify an extension here and there. I guess my question is off topic as a C++ dll / shared lib is not my main target but rather C: I need to integrate a printer driver and and would like if possible to avoid all of the .h stuff involved with SWIG (I am not being sarcastic): if I can setup my prototypes directly in python, why go through an extra layer ? Aren't ctypes better suited to such an application ? hg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
