Hi, so, what's the status? I wouldn't like to see this dangling around for too long. There's a lot of interesting and nice stuff to merge here.
Stefan Behnel, 20.08.2010 14:34: > your GSoC branch has been around for a while now. Given that 0.13 will be > out soon (soon-isher than ever before), is there anything that you consider > safe enough to get merged into mainline after the release? > > IMHO, any feature patch is a candidate, especially when it depends on > currently illegal syntax (i.e. not impacting existing code). Everything > that changes current behaviour is worth considering if it fixes a bug or > Python compatibility issue but may have to wait for 0.14 if it impacts code > that currently works with 0.13. Haoyu, you uploaded patches to Rietvelt. However, they don't include the hg metadata, so I can't just apply them. Is it easy enough for you (or Craig) to provide complete exported patches for each ticket? > From a quick look, I think #488 (ellipsis) is safe, but I'd like to see > some more syntax tests - I bet there are some in Python's own test suite. Is the space issue resolved now? > Ticket #487 (multiple 'with' statements) looks nice, but clearly lacks > test. I can't even see a test that makes sure the context managers are > executed in the correct nesting order, neither can I see anything that > tests the chaining of cleanup actions during exception propagation, let > alone partial propagation in cases where one of the context managers > swallows an exception. Again, Python's test suite will provide hints on > better tests here. > > Ticket #490 (nonlocal), while I'd be happy to get it in, seems too big a > change to go into 0.13.1. > > It seems you also have a fix for #477. That would be another candidate for > 0.13.1. Note that the related test case doesn't actually test that the > argument typing has the expected effect. This could be done using a tree > assertion based on coercion nodes. Do we have more complete tests for these now? I also took another quick look at the relative import code. Currently, we have the restriction that Cython requires (and consequently has) knowledge about the exact package layout for an extension module. I wonder if we shouldn't just use that information for relative imports. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
