On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:39 AM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Robert Bradshaw > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:41 AM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: >> >> Yes, it certainly is! One thing that worries me is that adding a >> bunch of tree traversals starts to slow things down--at the very >> least we should have a transform that doesn't descend into function >> bodies for speed reasons for stuff like this. > > Well, I believe my current code do not descend into functions body, > but perhaps I'm wrong.
Good. It's just that the default does descend all the way down. >>> Now I would like to know your opinions about >>> how the signatures should be rendered. Robert, if you see this, >>> please >>> enter the discussion. >> >> I'd render them the natural way, e.g. [return-type] name([type] arg, >> [type] arg, ...) >> > > That's the natural way from a C function. Docstrings do not apply for > 'cdef' functions, but for 'cdef' of 'cpdef'. > > Additionally, for 'def' functions, I have no idea how to provide a > good 'return-type'. Not sure I'm understanding your question... for def functions the return type is always object, which is implied (i.e. one doesn't have to explicitly write "object"). > We should handle default aguments; I'm currently using > 'arg.default.compile_time_value(None)' (I'm passing 'None' to the call > because not sure at this point what to pass). If this fails, I just > use '<???>'. That sounds like a good first pass to me. I think a context object goes here, right? > Other stuff I'm not sure how to render is __get__/__set__/__del__ on > properties. Should I generate docstrings for them? Maybe, though those are lower priorities. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
