On 12/2/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Regardless, one could take a Pyrex bent on this and having Python-like > > method declarations but have C as the code body:: > > (some days, I wonder if we shouldn't just include Pyrex and tell every- > one to use that for *all* their extension work. Greg? how much work > would it be to equip Pyrex with a "retargetable" backend?)
+1. Pyrex makes extension writing significantly less painful. Perhaps the right path would be to add a mode that de-emphasized the python-compatability aspect of pyrex (automatic python <-> c conversion points), and added support for some of the things necessary in c but currently difficult in pyrex (like calling the initialization macro of a PyCObject). Add string, list, sequence, dict types, and a few restrictions (like on overriding built-ins) and you're close to something that can generate idiomatic c. Reducing the pyrex magic and adding more detailed errors to the code generator should eliminate much of the "code-peering" that is currently necessary (at least, by me) when writing extensions. regards, -MIke _______________________________________________ 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
