On May 14, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> Lisandro wrote:
>> After Robert changes for supporting complex, things are now far
>> easuer
>> IMHO
>
> A sure hallmark of (Robert's) well-written code is that it makes
> things
> easier for cases that wasn't considered originally :-)
Thanks. And here I felt like I was sticking is_complex tests in all
sorts of odd places... (I did try to minimize that.)
>> See the attached patch, testcase included. Disclaimer: this is a
>> completely unpolished hack written in 10 minutes before going home.
>> But now I'm even more confident we will find our way :-)
>
> Wonderful, it looks very good. I'd love to get this in the release if
> possible but I'll have to wait until you trust it (I'll update this
> if I
> get time for building Sage with it).
Looks good to me too. The line
type_name = self.qualified_name.split('.')[-1]
in __getattr__ seems extraneous, as does the empty comment in the
PyInt_from... code. With all this testing for basetype.is_int, it is
almost testing to make a subclass just for int typedefs. Also, we are
assuming that the only sizes that can occur are char, short, int,
long, and long long. (It sounds inconceivable, but the C spec would
allow 16-bit ints and 64-bit longs, or 64-bit ints as in ILP64.)
> There shouldn't be any behavioural changes *if* the external
> typedef was
> exact, right?
I shouldn't think so.
- Robert
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
