On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: > did you generate your code here with pyrex? If you want to jump in and > rework our C extensions to be pyrex based and everything works out just as > well or better than before, it'll be a great 0.9/1.0 feature. I've got a > bit of experience with cython already as I've worked on lxml a bit, cython > vs. pyrex any thoughts ? based on > http://docs.cython.org/src/userguide/pyrex_differences.html they seem pretty > similar (though cython seems more commonplace...)
Cython makes a lot more progress, but it's also its drawback at times. I've sticked to Pyrex when I don't need Cython's benefits, because Pyrex is far more stable and easier to depend on. For this kind of work, I'd suggest pyrex. But really both work. I might try that, after checking Pyrex's compatibility with Py3... I've never done that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
