Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > Stefan Behnel wrote: >> But I think we're getting back into details before their time here. I'm >> fine with disallowing this completely at the beginning, and to come up >> with sensible semantics when we see what common use cases are. > > Yes, I was just trying to get a better grip on what you were thinking > with two view types. > > If there's no big usecase for arithmetic operators on them in the first > place, I see no harm in having a > i_really_know_how_simd_works_now_let_me_shoot_myself_in_the_foot > directive enabling SIMD on views, enabling us to simplify and only have > one view type (i.e. it wouldn't "switch" semantics, only allow > semantics, which seems like a safer directive).
Well, it would start switching semantics from the moment we start allowing arithmetic operators on the memory view type, so I'm -1 on such an option that would shoot back into our own foot in a few months to years. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
