>> >> I don't get why you need to manually do it. Doesn't the c++ default >> construction just do it for you? > > No, because the memory for the class object is allocated deep withing > the Python library with an ordinary malloc, and the pointers just > passed around.
I see. I should have thought of that. So in-place construction would have to be done. >> >> Nastiness explained: Vector2d is a struct with 2 float members. I >> declare 2 float members in the python object, and then get a pointer >> to the first of these and cast it to a Vector2d. Assuming that the >> struct layout is the same in both of these, then accessing members via >> the cython properties will update the same shared bit of memory that >> the c++ struct uses. > > If this is just for syntactic sugar, it sound way to messy... I could > see simplifications of the properties syntax to make Python access > easier. > Yes -- it is way too messy. . > > setters, getters, (and delattrs?) would be defined iff they make sense > on the expression in question. One could imagine > > property readonly obj.x as x > > or something like that. I'm not a fan of the = sign, as it's no where > else used for declarations (it's always a statement), unless we do > something like > I agree that the = sign is confusing. And both "property" and "as" should be familiar to python users. In any case, this would be a nice addition. Where would I look to do something like this? Is it a big thing? Brett _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
