Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > If you haven't read it already I'd love to hear your comments some > time on this thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.cython.devel/1384
Yes, I've been keeping an eye on that, although I haven't been following all the details. There's no doubt that such a structure could be useful for some things. There's already a hint of it in Pyrex in one or two places, where the parser implements a feature by assembling existing parse tree nodes rather than introducing a new node type. More generally, attempting to decouple things where possible is certainly a worthy goal, and I'm open to ideas on how to do that. However, I'm wary of any plan that would involve making sweeping structural changes all at once. The current structure may seem overly complex and intertwined, but it's solving a problem with inherently complex and intertwined features. I suspect there's a limit to how much it can be simplified. > It's not as bad a structure as such, the problem is that it doesn't > seem to scale up to the things we'd like to do with Cython, and the level > of developer independence we need. I understand that. I hope you can get it into a state that lets you do what you want. > Some > new features in Cython might be rather difficult to port over, because of > the stuff in the thread above. I know -- I'm not expecting to be able to use much of the actual code, perhaps none. It's the ideas I'm mainly interested in. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
