On Jun 29, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > 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.
To summarize, we're using Python syntax for now, and if there is time at the end of GSoC to implement references (which are a dependancy of the C++ style way of doing things) we'll reconsider at that point (this will also give us a bit of time to see how things feel). - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
