Hi, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> inline functions in pxd files is something I think comes in *really* >> handy, it is part of what the "include" statement is currently used >> for and inline functions are much nicer than include statements. > > +1 to inline functions. I've wanted these too.
Absolutely, +1. > I'm generally -1 on adding new syntax, but what I had wasn't very > clear either. Would it be enough to accept a locals decorator? I think that's a very clean compromise. You can a) specify the signature in .pxd files as you would in .pyx files, just without a function body. b) write importable inline functions in .pxd files as a function with body, just as you would in a .pyx file. c) specify local variable types for a .py implemented function in a .pxd file by adding a decorator to a function signature, but without providing a function body. So, whenever a function signature in a .pxd file has a body at all, it must be a complete inline function. I actually don't think that users would intuitively expect the current way of defining local variables in .pxd files to work. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
