My first reaction to Dag's request was "No, please! Yet another extension...", but then I reached the rationale (build tools and chains), and my mind suddenly changed to a +1.
On 24 June 2010 15:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <[email protected]> wrote: > Kurt Smith wrote: >> >> +1 (FWIW). This would definitely make things easier working with >> distutils since it assumes '.pyx' means Pyrex, as you mention. >> >> Would .pxd map to .cyd? .pxi -> .cyi? > > I think this is much less important as they don't need to be entry > points for build tools. But I guess we could just as well support "cyd" > (or "cyh"? which seems to be more explanative to me). > Either would do. BTW, an "h" instead of "d" in not so much explanatory IMO. > > pxi I think we've pretty much deprecated, > Indeed. > > but why not.. > -1. Why not? Well, because they are deprecated :-). Additionally, they are not entry points to build tools. -- Lisandro Dalcin --------------- CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL) Predio CONICET-Santa Fe Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011) Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169 _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
