On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:17:19 -0500, Robert Dailey wrote: > On 10/21/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> No, I literally meant that the Python C API is object-oriented. You >> don't need an object-oriented language to write object-oriented code. > > I disagree with this statement. C is not an object oriented language, > and I've seen attempts to make it somewhat object oriented, however it > failed miserably in readability and manageability overhead. However, > this isn't the place to discuss such a thing so I've got nothing more to > say than that.
What he means is that the C API provides a complete, if boilerplate- heavy, interface to object oriented aspects of Python. I.e., you can write Python types completely in C, including all the OOPy stuff like inheritance and so on. You don't need a language with built-in support of OOP to do that. Now, a C++ API for CPython would necessarily be built on top of the C API, which carries some limitations relative to the OOP abilities of C++ itself. I suspect all you'll get from a C++ binding is a slightly more comfortable (to people who like C++) calling interface. It could help bring some unity to your extension code, and maybe get rid of a few typecasts and simplify function names. But you shouldn't expect anything like the ability to freely inherit between C++ and Python classes. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
