On Feb 19, 3:15 pm, Carsten Haese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Ok, take this one. C is faster than Python. It would be useful, in > > certain cases, to write C. > > > It is possible but inconvenient, out of the way. > > Making that easier is a worthy goal... > > > Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 11:48:51 -0800 (PST) > > Subject: C function in a Python context > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/cd2... > > > A simple compile and link function. Useful for basic cases; if you > > want to get fancy, don't use it. > > ...and THAT's your solution?!? That solution is more insane than clever. > I enjoy thinking outside the box as much as anybody, but requiring the > run-time environment to have a compiler so that it can compile a piece > of "inline C code" every time the program is run is absolutely > ludicrous. > > > My suspicion is that my choices of message subjects, function names, > > and variable names, is the biggest hang up. > > I think your biggest hangup is that you believe too much in your own > creativity. There are already viable solutions out there for integrating > C and Python: Pyrex, Cython, and ctypes come to mind. > > -- > Carsten Haesehttp://informixdb.sourceforge.net
OH YEAH. Color me absent-minded. File under "No, they're not compiled." On the other hand, a number of modules are not available on all platforms. 'extcode' is merely not available on all machines. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
