[ctypes-users] Re: Future plans for ctypes

[Paul M. <pf_...@ya...>]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:36:36 +0100, Thomas Heller <th...@py...>
wrote:

>Lenard Lindstrom wrote:
>> Congratulations on getting ctypes into the Python distribution.

Agreed.

>> I have been following the discussed changes and this is just an idea. 
>> Why not release ctypes into the Python core library under a new name. 
>> There is certainly a precident with optparse.  Then it can have the 
>> interface you want. For backwards compatibility a ctypes wrapper 
>> package can be built around the core package, like wxPython is now 
>> built around wx. To me ctypes implies an alternative to the struct 
>> module. It certainly is not that. Is there some licensing reason it 
>> can't be named ffi?
>
>There's no principal problem, afaik, to rename it to ffi.  But, I don't like
>this idea, although I will have to sleep over it.  IIRC, optik was renamed
>from optparse because the python-dev crowd did not like the name.

I'm not keen on the name ffi. I'm not at all sure why, in many ways
it's much more accurate. Just gut feel, and the fact that I'm used to,
and like, the name ctypes.

The case of optparse/optik was a little different, IMHO. I think optik
was considered a little too "cute" for a stdlib module name, and
optparse was more "formal" (my recollection could be wrong, though). I
don't think that applies here.

Paul.
-- 
Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves. -- Carl
Sagan