Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > As it is, it looks like even if we could agree on a syntax, I'd still > have to go to the mailing list for every little nick and cranny in the > semantics, checking if it could be acceptable for both numerical and > non-numerical use. I just don't have the time for that.
Sorry, but I'm really trying to do exactly the opposite here. I would like to have a syntax that is generic enough to support all we will need in a clean and straight forward way, so that you can start hacking away without having to ask back when you find details that sort-of don't really fit into what we have decided on. If a normal type syntax is accepted, you can design the type itself in whatever way, since you will just be developing/reiterating/redesigning that (external looking) type and not interfere with the language syntax. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
