On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Danilo Freitas wrote: >> >>> So, I think one thing I need to change, is that instead of >>> creating a >>> template syntax, I'll work on improving an already existing syntax >>> right? >> >> Probably, yes. >> >>> And so that it should be useful all templates (including STL)? >>> >>> And should I also work on those ohter problems? I'm afraid of >>> putting >>> many things on proposal, and don't finish it in time. :/
BTW, despite being past the deadline, I think the proposal can be updated while it's being evaluated. >> As expected, this could turn into a huge wishlist of things that >> would be nice to have, certainly not all feasible for a GSoC >> project :). I would say >> >> (1) Being able to wrap templated code > > What's needed is > a) Parse new syntax for declaring templates > b) Register that information in PyrexTypes/Symtab > c) Output the type arguments directly to C++. > > so it's not very much work (on the same order as complex float > support, say). > >> (2) Polyomorphic functions >> >> would be the priorities, and allow a nearly full wrapping of STL. If >> time permits > > Doesn't polymorphic functions work currently? I'd think that were > one of > the few C++ things that *do* work in Cython. > > Do you mean "overloaded" functions? Yes, that's the more specific term I really meant. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
