Hi,
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> Yeah, it could get ugly: cython.types.pointer(cython.types.pointer
>> (cython.types.int))."
>
> I think "cython.types" is too longwinded anyway, in practice it would be:
>
> import cython.types as c
wouldn't that have to be
cimport cython.types as c
?
Although that would break Python compatibility again, right?
That's somewhat unfortunate...
BTW, what would be provide to keep up Python compatibility anyway? Would there
be a fake importable package like this just to make the code work in Python?
You'd have to ship that with you Cython/Python code, then ...
> c.ptr(c.ptr(c.int))
>
> Which isn't *that* bad? And one could provide all kind of convenience
> pre-declared names:
>
> c.pint = c.ptr(c.int)
> c.ppint = ...
> c.pchar = ...
> c.ppchar = ...
>
> Perhaps just make a convention of providing up to three "ppp"-types for
> every type, and then have a parametrized type
>
> c.ptrs(6, c.int)
>
> if you really want to do int******.
>
> PChar is already a well-known synonym for char* in some codebases.
+1 here, although I'd call it "p_int" and "pp_int" instead of a good ol'
"pint". :)
And c.ptrs() is better written as "c.pointer(c.int, levels=6)" and maybe
DEF-assigned to a name somewhere in the code.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
