Hi, just a couple of additional comments here.
I do see the advantage of the "with" proposal, but that would require us to have a couple of keywords for things like "carray" that the compiler would have to recognise. Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > If you want a different memory allocator, simply use a different > function than carray... If you want a different allocator than used by the proposed syntax, don't use the syntax. IMHO, it's perfectly ok if syntactic sugar helps in most cases but not all. > 3) Long-term Python users with very little C experience might end up > doing something like > > cdef double a[size] > # fill in a > return a This is a problem that could be caught in the compiler. Returning a local non-scalar/non-pointer variable could just be forbidden. And the remaining case where you return an explicitly created pointer to the same thing is just stupidity. > 3) Just an overall comment: I personally think NumPy arrays are > excellent for this. I'd have no problems personally with using a NumPy > array only in order to allocate memory and then pass that memory on to a > C library for instance. (The problem is, I suppose, having to depend on > the NumPy library...though investing effort in creating a garbage > collected array type when NumPy already has that seems too much like > reinventing the wheel to me.) This will become more convenient than > today if Cython grows better NumPy support. Requiring NumPy for what the proposal tries to achieve clearly looks like overkill to me. >> 3) The trick is to make sure that free(private_ptr) is called when the >> function's scope is finished. That's actually trivial, as the generated function body always goes through the same (or a limited number of different) cleanup code sequences at the end. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list Cython-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
