Skip to content

Commit 7f58e66

Browse files
committed
removed non-portable but beautiful “/”
[SVN r8349]
1 parent 4e27f8d commit 7f58e66

File tree

9 files changed

+244
-50
lines changed

9 files changed

+244
-50
lines changed

doc/building.html

Lines changed: 2 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ <h1>
3535
<p>
3636
&copy; Copyright David Abrahams 2000. Permission to copy, use, modify,
3737
sell and distribute this document is granted provided this copyright
38-
notice appears in all copies. This document is provided &ldquo;as
39-
is&rdquo; without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to
38+
notice appears in all copies. This document is provided ``as
39+
is'' without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to
4040
its suitability for any purpose.
4141
<p>
4242
Updated: Nov 26, 2000

doc/comparisons.html

Lines changed: 19 additions & 19 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ <h2>CXX</h2>
1919
exceptions into Python exceptions. As far as I can tell, CXX has no
2020
support for subclassing C++ extension types in Python. An even
2121
more significant difference is that a user's C++ code is still basically
22-
&ldquo;dealing with Python objects&rdquo;, though they are wrapped in
22+
``dealing with Python objects'', though they are wrapped in
2323
C++ classes. This means such jobs as argument parsing and conversion are
2424
still left to be done explicitly by the user.
2525

@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ <h2>CXX</h2>
4040
<p>
4141
As far as I can tell, CXX enables one to write what is essentially
4242
idiomatic Python code in C++, manipulating Python objects through the
43-
same fully-generic interfaces we use in Python. While you're hardly programming directly to the &ldquo;bare
44-
metal&rdquo; with CXX, it basically presents a &ldquo;C++-ized&rdquo;
43+
same fully-generic interfaces we use in Python. While you're hardly programming directly to the ``bare
44+
metal'' with CXX, it basically presents a ``C++-ized''
4545
version of the Python 'C' API.
4646

4747
<p>
@@ -51,11 +51,11 @@ <h2>CXX</h2>
5151
fill in the other half. Here is his response to the commentary above:
5252

5353
<blockquote>
54-
&ldquo;My intention with CXX was not to do what you are doing. It was to enable a
54+
``My intention with CXX was not to do what you are doing. It was to enable a
5555
person to write an extension directly in C++ rather than C. I figured others had
5656
the wrapping business covered. I thought maybe CXX would provide an easier
5757
target language for those making wrappers, but I never explored
58-
that.&rdquo;<br><i>-<a href="mailto:dubois1@llnl.gov">Paul Dubois</a></i>
58+
that.''<br><i>-<a href="mailto:dubois1@llnl.gov">Paul Dubois</a></i>
5959
</blockquote>
6060

6161
<h2>SWIG</h2>
@@ -67,20 +67,20 @@ <h2>SWIG</h2>
6767
Perl or Tcl) extension module. It has been successfully used to create
6868
many Python extension modules. Like BPL, SWIG is trying to allow an
6969
existing interface to be wrapped with little or no change to the
70-
existing code. The documentation says &ldquo;SWIG parses a form of ANSI C
70+
existing code. The documentation says ``SWIG parses a form of ANSI C
7171
syntax that has been extended with a number of special directives. As a
7272
result, interfaces are usually built by grabbing a header file and
73-
tweaking it a little bit.&rdquo; For C++ interfaces, the tweaking has often
73+
tweaking it a little bit.'' For C++ interfaces, the tweaking has often
7474
proven to amount to more than just a little bit. One user
7575
writes:
7676

77-
<blockquote> &ldquo;The problem with swig (when I used it) is that it
77+
<blockquote> ``The problem with swig (when I used it) is that it
7878
couldnt handle templates, didnt do func overloading properly etc. For
7979
ANSI C libraries this was fine. But for usual C++ code this was a
8080
problem. Simple things work. But for anything very complicated (or
8181
realistic), one had to write code by hand. I believe BPL doesn't have
8282
this problem[<a href="#sic">sic</a>]... IMHO overloaded functions are very important to
83-
wrap correctly.&rdquo;<br><i>-Prabhu Ramachandran</i>
83+
wrap correctly.''<br><i>-Prabhu Ramachandran</i>
8484
</blockquote>
8585

8686
<p>
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ <h2>GRAD</h2>
124124
<a
125125
href="http://www.python.org/workshops/1996-11/papers/GRAD/html/GRADcover.html">GRAD</a>
126126
is another very ambitious project aimed at generating Python wrappers for
127-
interfaces written in &ldquo;legacy languages&rdquo;, among which C++ is the first one
127+
interfaces written in ``legacy languages'', among which C++ is the first one
128128
implemented. Like SWIG, it aims to parse source code and automatically
129129
generate wrappers, though it appears to take a more sophisticated approach
130130
to parsing in general and C++ in particular, so it should do a much better
@@ -152,9 +152,9 @@ <h2>Zope ExtensionClasses</h2>
152152
to support subclassing of extension types in Python, including
153153
multiple-inheritance. Both systems support pickling/unpickling of
154154
extension class instances in very similar ways. Both systems rely on the
155-
same &ldquo;<a
155+
same ``<a
156156
href="http://www.python.org/workshops/1994-11/BuiltInClasses/Welcome.html">Don
157-
Beaudry Hack</a>&rdquo; that also inspired Don's MESS System.
157+
Beaudry Hack</a>'' that also inspired Don's MESS System.
158158
<p>
159159
The major differences are:
160160
<ul>
@@ -177,23 +177,23 @@ <h2>Zope ExtensionClasses</h2>
177177
"http://www.digicool.com/releases/ExtensionClass/MultiMapping.html">A
178178
Zope Example</a> illustrates the differences.
179179
<li>
180-
Zope's ExtensionClasses are specifically motivated by &ldquo;the need for a
181-
C-based persistence mechanism&rdquo;. BPL's are motivated by the desire
180+
Zope's ExtensionClasses are specifically motivated by ``the need for a
181+
C-based persistence mechanism''. BPL's are motivated by the desire
182182
to simply reflect a C++ API into Python with as little modification as
183183
possible.
184184
<li>
185-
The following Zope restriction does not apply to BPL: &ldquo;At most one
185+
The following Zope restriction does not apply to BPL: ``At most one
186186
base extension direct or indirect super class may define C data
187187
members. If an extension subclass inherits from multiple base
188188
extension classes, then all but one must be mix-in classes that
189-
provide extension methods but no data.&rdquo;
189+
provide extension methods but no data.''
190190
<li>
191191
Zope requires use of the somewhat funky inheritedAttribute (search for
192-
&ldquo;inheritedAttribute&rdquo; on <a
192+
``inheritedAttribute'' on <a
193193
href="http://www.digicool.com/releases/ExtensionClass">this page</a>)
194194
method to access base class methods. In BPL, base class methods can
195195
be accessed in the usual way by writing
196-
&ldquo;<code>BaseClass.method</code>&rdquo;.
196+
``<code>BaseClass.method</code>''.
197197
<li>
198198
Zope supplies some creative but esoteric idioms such as <a href=
199199
"http://www.digicool.com/releases/ExtensionClass/Acquisition.html">
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ <h2>Zope ExtensionClasses</h2>
211211
<p>
212212
&copy; Copyright David Abrahams 2000. Permission to copy, use, modify,
213213
sell and distribute this document is granted provided this copyright
214-
notice appears in all copies. This document is provided &ldquo;as is&rdquo; without
214+
notice appears in all copies. This document is provided ``as is'' without
215215
express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability
216216
for any purpose.
217217
<p>

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)