On Mar 15, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> More comments on this in a separate email. > > Don't think I recieved it?
No. I didn't have time to post a full response then, and I'm just finding time to think about this now :). > Anyway, I think I finally understand your concerns (about time, I > simply > overlooked something crucial...), and my response is in a completely > rewritten and much shorter and less complex > > http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/operators/ambitious It is certainly easier to understand, and seems much more concrete to me. (I could actually see this getting implemented.) Essentially, you still will have a transformation that converts the binary operations to a function call (which may or may not be inlined, either by Cython or by gcc (I would say the latter). The function body comes from the .pxd file. This is a bit odd, but I think the right place to put it. If the given type is a parameterized type, how would the "body" of the method refer to this compile-time data? You had a typeof(x) pseudo function that might work--i.e. typeof(x).foo() would call the method foo of the type x (as known at compile time), call foo() on it which by would return a note that would be inserted into the tree at that point. > (Sorry about spamming you in the middle of your conference, just > let it be > until you have time...) No problem. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
