Stefan Behnel wrote: > 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.
The problem is just the time this all takes to get to that point -- every minute spent on emails is less time spent on actual coding. I'm not only wasting my time, but also your and Robert's time and ultimately making sure nothing is done about getting 0.12 out etc. etc. About syntax, I should likely just have yielded and be over with it, but you didn't care to explain to my (when I pointed it out bluntly) why I should yield to a view that is in every way in miniority. And then I woke up and asked myself if life is long enough for this kind of thing. Well, threads (unfortunately) being an irresistible temptation, I'll say this last thing (in case it can help you understand my position): - int[:,:] is just so much convenient and friendly for numerical users, and looks better for something I'd use that much - I agree with Robert that Cython is one of those "transparent languages" where it should be possible to easily guess what kind of C code will be generated, and views seem too magic to be put alongside structs and extension types in the syntax. - I too don't see what the point is with the non-SIMD view, it has no real usecase as it is just the SIMD view with less features. It may make you intellectually happier as SIMD is then "less integrated", but I think it will just serve to confuse users who will ask just that question: "Why are there two view types?" (And pretending it is inheritance or similar just seems dishonest, as there's so much magic things going on for SIMD, and won't can't inherit from the SIMD view type.) Note: I'll try very, very hard to not make a reply to any reply you make to this last part. But I'd love a comment from you on how you think Cython should be managed and these long threads avoided etc., re: Robert's mail. -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
