On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Stefan Behnel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
Hi, Thanks for getting these merged! It's great that now I can move my focus to the other patches. I think #477 (@cython.locals for cdef function) will be the next one. I'll try to cleanup and add more tests for #542 (relative import) and #423 (explicit exception chaining syntax) as well. > 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 > The relative import feature I implemented is Python's runtime relative import. I'm not sure whether Cython need compile-time relative import and how that should be done. Thanks! -- Haoyu BAI School of Computing, National University of Singapore. _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
