From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Katz Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxen-3.0 (libxc rewrite) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:31:31 -0500 Message-ID: <1111505492.20157.34.camel@bree.local.net> References: <424033A5.4020802@us.ibm.com> <1111504492.20157.26.camel@bree.local.net> <42403733.8070903@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <42403733.8070903@us.ibm.com> Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Anthony Liguori Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 09:18 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > >Note that Pyrex generates some pretty crappy code (to the point that it > >won't build at all with gcc4). The dbus guys are seriously considering > >switching away from pyrex-generated bindings to something hand done. > > > Do you have a suggestion for an alternative? I know there are a number > of binding-generators but I thought Pyrex was the most widely used. Pyrex is probably the most generally used -- the stuff pygtk uses is nice, but not very general. In most cases, though, bindings done by hand end up being higher quality than something that's just being generated. Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: 2005 Windows Mobile Application Contest Submit applications for Windows Mobile(tm)-based Pocket PCs or Smartphones for the chance to win $25,000 and application distribution. Enter today at http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6882&alloc_id=15148&op=click