Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > It seems that me and Kurt are full speed ahead implementing memory view, > after all. > > Regarding syntax (not only the big issue of int[:], but also lots of > smaller details in it), I think I'm going to take this stance: > > In the first Cython release this ends up in (0.12 perhaps) this feature > is marked as "experimental". Even using it will output a warning: > > Warning: The memory view type is experimental, and its syntax may change > in future Cython versions. Do not write too much code with it. > > (A compiler directive can turn off the warning for Kurt's use.) > > This seems to allow us getting the necessary experience developing and > using it before fixing anything. > > For those who are still following, I'd love some input on whether > creative use of & seems acceptable. Basically on each axis we need to > specify two closely connected, but orthogonal attributes: > > Access mode: direct, ptr, full > Packing mode: contig, strided, follow > > These will have lots of defaults and so on so you don't normally use > them, but I'll deal with the situation where you do (for power users, > which can tuck it away in a ctypedef). My visually preffered alternative is > > cdef int[::contig & ptr, ::strided & direct] > > although it would be possible to do e.g. > > cdef int[::(contig, ptr), ::(strided, direct)] > > instead. >
Hmm. I just realize that if this was C, you'd have those as flags in different bits and use |, so add to that list: cdef int[::contig | ptr, ::strided | direct] But I like & better, visually, and this isn't a low-level C feature. *shrug* -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
