Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Dag Sverre > Seljebotn<[email protected]> wrote: >> Or that #333-like behaviour will *only* be done if you use a "?"? If so, >> for what gain? -- some fewer lines of C code? Why does it hurt to >> "second-guess the user", as you put it in the OP? >> > > Because of your fist question and my previous comment. Second-guessing > will be a bad thing...
I disagree, I think second-guessing is wonderful. (That is, if you want me to understand this, you must explain more -- of course, it is not a necessity that I understand this.) If the only effect is to save a few lines of C and a few cycles of CPU time for gcc, then I don't think it is worth it to complicate the language. I do think this could be good to have if we inserted code at module init time to raise exceptions if sizeof(foo) != sizeof(bar) for all external typedefs, so that exactness is *enforced* in those situations. (That may break some backwards compatability but I think it is OK myself.) If that approach is also taken, at the same time, and this isn't done until 0.12, then +1. But otherwise I'm -1 since it adds thing to the language without any benefit at all (that I can see). > BTW, this likely should affect you work on member descriptor, right? It already second-guesses now; the only effect would be to speed up gcc compilation with a totally insignificant amount per member; not worth the time to make the likely trivial commit on Cython IMO. -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
