Home Original page

SWIG and Callbacks

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer mickey at tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Sun Jun 16 06:50:15 EDT 2002 
David Abrahams <david.abrahams at rcn.com> wrote:
> With Boost.Python, what you write looks like a kind of IDL (interface
> description language), which just happens to be built out of C++ source
> code. Lots of jobs (function argument type checking, conversion, arity
> checking) are done automatically, but the library doesn't decide which
> elements to wrap. Unlike SWIG and a few others, there's no attempt to parse
> your source code. Instead, the compile-time introspection capabilities of
> C++ are exploited to automatically build wrappers from function and member
> function pointers.

I see. So it seems in order to get a nice object oriented Python interface,
I can 1.) use SWIG to parse the header file and automatically produce a wrapper
      1.1.) and then use this low-level wrapper to write some high-level python classes around it or
      2.) use Boost.Python and do the two steps in one by writing a "handcrafted" interface?

How would sip come into this picture? Is it more like SWIG for C++ or more like Boost.Python?
(Apart from not beeing concerned about the total lack of documentation ;)

Yours,

:M:
More information about the Python-list mailing list