Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Feb 23, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Lisandro Dalcin wrote: >>> np.arange(10, dtype=s'i') >> There's >> absolutely no reason why the parameters should be byte strings. > > This is how unmarked string literals should work, right? Just like > the Python interpreter.
Well, at least, that's what's written in the code: a byte string. What I'm saying is that /requiring/ a byte string at the interface level is wrong. > I think you underestimate how long broken libraries will be out there. Let's wait and see. It didn't take me very long to fix up the Py3 unicode problems of lxml's API (those that were independent of Cython), so I would expect that any library can be fixed in a couple of weeks - as long as the tools play nicely. I have no idea how hard it is to fix these things in a SWIG wrapper, for example, but SWIG will also be fixed one day (and Cython code will likely not interfere with a SWIG wrapper anyway). Anyway, the NumPy case is not a use case for a new syntax feature, as it requires plain byte strings for now, not identifiers. Lisandro, if you can come up with a compelling use case that cannot easily be fixed in user code, I'll rethink my opposition. For now, I cannot see how this feature can lead to anything but even more broken interfaces. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
