[Numpy-discussion] Add pybind11 to docs about writing binding code (original) (raw)

Sylvain Corlay sylvain.corlay at gmail.com
Mon Aug 20 12:04:09 EDT 2018

Thanks guys.

If we add pybind11 and xtensor, boost.python is also a good contender there.

S.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 11:51 Hans Dembinski <hans.dembinski at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Robert,

> On 17. Aug 2018, at 23:44, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote: > > Even if you don't use the numpy-mimicking parts of the xtensor API, xtensor-python is a probably a net improvement over pybind11 for communicating arrays back and forth across the C++/Python boundary. Even if the rest of your C++ code doesn't use xtensor, you could profitably use xtensor-python at the interface. Also, though the article is generally framed as using Python as a glue language (i.e. communicating with existing C/C++/Fortran code), it is also relevant for the use case where you are writing the C/C++/Fortran code from scratch (perhaps just accelerating small kernels or whatever). Talking about the available options for that use case is perfectly on-topic for that article. no objections here, xtensor should be highlighted in the pybind11 part for these reasons. I just think it should not be a separate section. Best regards, Hans

NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180820/064d1c7e/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list