Re: Guile bindings for GSL and LAPACK

[Achim Gädke <achim dot gaedke at uni-koeln dot de>]

Wartan Hachaturow wrote:

>Actually, I've never had any experience with swig. I've just noticed that
>your bindings are fairly complete, while pygsl's are not. So, I made
>an assumption that it's easier to use swig to produce bindings.
>Perhaps, pygsl people might have some arguments against swig..
>If they haven't, I might have a look at this process -- since I'm pretty
>interested in python/gsl integration (but not ready to hand-write all
>of the wrappers :).
>
One of the features, I can not achieve with swig, is the use of classes,
subtyping and so on... At least, it was not possible two years before,
when I started pygsl. The aim of pygsl is to provide modularised and
objectoriented access to the gsl features.

Yes, writing an interface by hand is not very nice, but usefull for
those, who use it. If you have success with swig, just mail to
mailto:pygsl-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net .

Yours, Achim