> > I read the cffi docs once again and went through some of the examples. I
> > want to divide this to two topics.
> >
> > One is what you call the "ABI" level. IMHO, it's hands down superior to
> > ctypes. Your readdir demo demonstrates this very nicely. I would
> definitely
> > want to see this in the stdlib as an alternative way to interface to C
> > shared objects & DLLs.
> >
> > Two is what you call the "API" level, which is where my opinion becomes
> > mixed. Some things just don't feel right to me:
> >
> > 1. Tying in a C compiler into the flow of a program. I'm not sure
> whether we
> > have precedents for it in the stdlib. Does this work on Windows where
> > libraries and DLLs are usually built with MSVC?
> >
>
> Yes. Precedent in the stdlib is really the C API. All the same rules
> apply (including build and ship a dll).
>
So would you say that the main use of the API level is provide an
alternative for writing C API code to interface to C libraries. IOW, it's
in competition with Swig?
>
> > 2. Using a function called "verify" to create stuff. This may sound like
> a
> > naming bikeshed, but it's not. It ties in to the question - why is this
> > needed?
>
> We welcome a better opinion of name (indeed verify is not that great).
> This elevates ABI to API so either invokes the C compiler or reads
> stuff from the cache.
>
Can you elaborate on what "elevates ABI to API" means here?
> > 3. The partial type specifications in C with ellipsis. What is the point?
> > You have the C declarations somewhere anyhow, so why introduce this? The
> > "ABI level" boasts having just C and Python to write, but those partial
> > ellipsis-ridden declarations are hardly C.
>
> No, you don't. Some libraries contain macros for example (like
> OpenSSL) where you just can't use ABI because it makes no sense. It's
> less common on windows where binary compatibility is important,
> however looking on linux, multiple stdlib declaration would use
> ellipsis in the man page.
It would be useful to find an actual example and discuss it concretely.
> I can't seem to find one right now, but it's
> something like:
>
> struct X {
> int public_field;
> ...
> }
>
> which is impossible to do correctly with ctypes without exposing some
> sort of platform dependency that might change without warning.
>
> Another usages are #define SQLITE_OK ... which you don't know at the
> time of writing (people assume those won't change and the do change).
>
Do you mean that the value of SQLITE_OK changed over time (now it's 0, but
used to be different?)
If so, then in a realistic use case, how would the API level help solve
this?
Eli
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
