I'd love to see this idea explored; it sounds like it might well be the right solution. (It's also an extension of the "separate tool for conversion" idea that I floated earlier.)
One requirement: it should be possible to resume development and the preprocessor at any time. I don't like tools that generate code once which you then continue to develop manually. (Numeric Python's history has a good anti-pattern example of this.) On 12/2/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: > > > "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> - Can't we require a C99 compiler and use C99 struct initialization? > >> Then the table lines could look like > >> > >> tp_new = Noddy_new, > >> tp_init = Noddy_init, > > > > The C99 syntax is: > > > > .tp_new = Noddy_new, > > .tp_init = Noddy_init, > > I'm beginning to wonder if a preprocessor isn't the right way to get > around both the syntax issues related to type objects, and also a bunch > of other issues that keep cropping up if you're doing serious extension > development (better code generation for ParseTuple is one of those). a > preprocessor would also give us more leeway to tweak the Python/C glue > layer in future releases. > > if done right, the preprocessor would only be required during module > development; not by people building C extensions. > > </F> > > _______________________________________________ > Python-3000 mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
