On 10/10/2010 11:54 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > As part of the "rewrite interrupt handling" ticket #9678, I decided that > _sig_on should be an *inline function* instead of a macro (one very good > reason for this would be that we can declare it cdef inline int sig_on() > except -1 in order to use Cython's exception propagation mechanism). > > For this to be possible, the syntax of _sig_on must be changed by adding > function-call parentheses. I also suggest to drop the leading > underscore and make it "sig_on()" instead of "_sig_on". > > Right now, I would like to simply change "_sig_on" to "sig_on()" without > changing the meaning, only the syntax. At ticket #10115 I did just > that. After macro expansion, the generated code with #10115 should be > exactly the same as before. > > I hope this patch #10115 can be in sage-4.6 because it would make > development of #9678 a lot easier. Since it doesn't actually change the > code (after macro expansion), I think it is also safe to include it at > this point in the sage-4.6 development process. I hope the release > manager agrees with me.
Are there any objections to making Jeroen's proposed change? The sage repository patch at #10115 touches 106 files. We could merge it late in 4.6 or very early in 4.6.1. The latter seems safer, but I *might* be willing to consider the former, if #10115 has a positive review soon and indeed does not cause any problems. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10115 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9678 -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
