On Feb 19, 3:48 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted > text - > > - Show quoted text -
May I insist? By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules out 'ext'. If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason. What is it? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
