Re: [libgpiod v2][PATCH 3/5] bindings: python: add examples for v2 API

[Jiri Benc <jbenc@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 10:42:44 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 6:49 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Agree that it would be easier to write a pythonic wrapper around the C
> > API in Python, so no problem with that.
> > However, the pythonic wrapper should the one named gpiod, as it is
> > intended to be the primary interface for Python.  Rename your existing
> > to gpiod_c or gpiod_core or something.
> 
> I don't agree. The module that wraps the C library should still be
> called gpiod and be the primary interface. The pythonic module would
> just offer helpers that would still use the gpiod data types for most
> part.

As a Python user, I'd much rather see the high level API being the
primary interface and being named 'gpiod'. The easier to use and more
Pythonic, the better. The low level library bindings and low level data
types are just an implementation detail for me when coding in Python.
If I wanted low level, I'd code everything directly in C.

Just my two cents. Thanks for the good work in either case.

 Jiri