On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lisandro Dalcin wrote: >> It is not to much at all. I would even ask for '1' and '0' also being >> accepted for booleans. > > I'm going to side with Stefan here and tighten it up: "here should be one— > and preferably only one —obvious way to do it." > > So so far it stands +2 to True/False in source and allow yes/no on command > line as well, and +1 for keeping it as it is but add 1 and 0 as well.
I was not clear enough. For the command line, accept all of true,false | yes/no | 1,0 . For souce code, I can live with just True/False, but remember that using 1 and 0 for booleans is frequent in Python code, though I realize that such usages could be considered a bit dated and should be discouraged. >>> b) A command line argument "cython -O boundscheck=False,other=tRUe -O >>> third=yes". This overrides the #cython comments, but NOT c) and d) >>> listed below. >> >> Well, '-O' smells to 'optimization' for me. > > True. Then again, most of the options will be optimization-related. > > Any other suggestions? -d or -D for directive perhaps, if they are not > taken. -D means #define in C of course... Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps '-O' was a good idea after all. >> I really prefer the decorator form. The 'with' form could require a >> lot of identation if you want to set a lot for options. > > Well, then you use the decorator form in your code. > > Hopefully we can have class decorators as well though. > OK, That's great. I missunderstood you. -- Lisandro Dalcín --------------- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594 _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
