On Apr 24, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: > Hi, > > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> Perhaps we >> should get rid of .pxi files altogether and just call them .pyx >> files, because that's really what they are. > > -1 here. Included files usually are not complete, i.e. they lack > cimports etc. > that they expect to be in the parent .pyx file. Calling them .pyx > suggests > that they work when run through Cython stand-alone, which will > almost always fail. > > I would suggest that people use .pxd files whenever possible, as > they have > much clearer semantics as "declaration" files. .pxi files are just > to share > real code between .pyx files, or to split Cython code files without > also > splitting the C files. > > What was the reason again why Cython ships with those .pxi files > for the > Python API? I think that's one of the sources of this confusion. > Wouldn't it > be enough to use .pxd files there as well?
Yes, it makes much more sense to call these .pxd files. Most people shouldn't need to deal with pxi files at all, but we can still keep them. Done. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list Cython-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
