Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> which is no better than simply trying to put MyCppClass on the stack, >> so sticking the memory chunk in a PyObject* doesn't really save you >> anything. (Well, it lets you pass it out of the scope, and gives >> reference assignment semantics, but I'm not sure either of these are >> desirable for something that looks like its allocated on the stack, >> and one could provide this in an orthogonal way (e.g. with the >> "managed" keyword idea). Also, giving it reference semantics means >> that we could never go and optimize it by placing things actually on >> the stack. > > We're hitting the core of the matter here! > > I can see why one would like to stay "close to the metal", so to speak. > I was mainly (mis)interpreting your lack of support in the "C++ stack > allocation" thread as being in favour of this other proposal...
OK I'm sorry, my C++ stack allocation thread was way more far-reaching. Just scratch that reference. -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
