Haoyu Bai, 06.04.2010 05:17:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Robert Bradshaw, 05.04.2010 21:00:
>>> I'm not convinced that grouping internal Cython constructions based on
>>> whether they have a "pure" counterpart is the best way to do things--
>>> in my ind the directives having to do with division are best handled
>>> in the division node, those dealing with buffers best handled in the
>>> buffer code, etc.
>>
>> It's nice to have a simple language interface to all these features, but
>> that doesn't mean they have to be any similar on the implementation side.
>
> I'm not mean to unify the implementation of these features. The
> decorators would just set directive or flags to the node
Well, again: it's not just nodes.
> then the
> nodes only need to dealing with these directives or flags, rather than
> check the decorators directly.
The decorators work on subtrees, usually functions, so they'd have to apply
their "directive or flags" to the whole subtree, and they'd have to know
what nodes to intercept on. The easiest way to do these things is - a
transform visitor, just what we currently have.
> if we forbid "from cython import *", then do we allow this:
>
> from cython import cfunc, int, float
Sure.
> otherwise, I just imagine, it could be pain to write a lot of
> @cython.cfunc instead of the simply cdef.
If you have to write that a lot, just use a selective import or
cimport cython as cy
I get the impression that you are chasing non-problems here.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
