Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Jun 27, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > >> It's just the idea of being able to wrap "C++ libraries if they are >> not >> too strange" I have some issues with. > > I have issues with this approach too, so no worries about selling > short on that front :). (Wrapping strange libraries may be non- > trivial, but hopefully no more so than using them.) Also, the final > milestone of the project is to be able to wrap all of STL, which > although it doesn't cover everything, does quite a bit.
Sure, was just pointing out that a given path might lead you to need to define __inc__ or __deref__ and so on in order to be able to support all of STL (in fact __deref__ is a much better example; as the return type of "*it" must be declared, and "it[0]" may not be legal). I'd rather prefer C++ syntax over __inc__ or __deref__ (i.e. if we didn't manage to "get rid of" the C++ semantics in the first place). I haven't found an alternative to inline C++ code OR supporting only a subset, so if you're still against inline C++ code I'm inclined to give a +1 to C++ syntax, also on the constructor. But I don't really worry, and will leave it at this. -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
