Python binding

[nemequ]

It would be nice to have Python bindings.

[rmax]

What's your preference for the official python bindings? The options are:

• C-based bindings: Writing C code directly, minimum call overhead. Requires dealing with Python 2/3 support by yourself.
• Cython-based bindings: a little overhead in the generated wrapping functions but easier to maintain and supports Python 2 & 3 out of the box.
• CFFI-based bindings: This allows to support PyPy.

From what I have seen in the wild, official bindings are either pure C-based or Cython-based, it's matter of preference of the maintainers.

[nemequ]

I really don't have a preference; I don't do Python (or any dynamically typed language if I have a choice), so I don't think I'm really qualified to have an opinion.

The one preference I do have is that I would prefer to have it built, at least optionally, by Squash's build system instead of requiring a second build system (i.e., a setup.py script). I don't mind helping implement the CMake bits.

[jakirkham]

There are a couple of other options beyond the ones already listed. Most notably Boost.Python and SWIG. The former mainly makes sense if you already are writing C++ and use Boost. SWIG exists mainly if you want lots of bindings to your code from many different languages.

That said, having written bindings to Python before, I would recommend Cython. Way less work to get started and way less work to maintain. That said, if you prefer writing/maintaining C normally, C-based would be reasonable.