Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> I think it would be worth adding unranked types ("ctypedef some int
> foo" or "ctypedef unknown int foo"), and possibly even a way to
> declare relative rankings (though I don't know that we've come across
> the right syntax to do this yet). Once they're in and we start using
> them, then we can re-open the debate about what the default should
> be. At this point we'll have a better migration path and a better
> feel how restrictive (or not) using these "unranked" types actually is.
Sounds wise.
As for syntax, I think it should be tied to ctypedef-ing the type, like
ctypedef some int foo:
> int
< bar
< baz
or
ctypedef some int foo [>int, <bar, <baz]
Dag Sverre
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
