Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > Chuck Blake wrote: >>> This made my mind up: I do not think we should reinvent the wheel here. >> This was just following up what Stefan seemed interested in. It was just >> an alternative to using the far simpler use case of DEFINED which was >> merely if not DEFINED(foo) and bears little relation to C++ templates. >> You do seem to understand that from below, but I wanted to mention it >> more explicitly. > > Yes, I was following up myself, I could have been more clear. For the > record, I'm still +0 on Chuck's proposal. >
Also, I think it is important at this stage for Cython that patches are accepted unless there are good reasons against it, i.e that without any -1 it gets applied. But that is just a personal opinion. -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
