On Feb 1, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:

> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 25.01.2010 10:17:
>>
>>> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>>>> [...] why not just represent a borrowed reference as a pointer?
>>>>> So you could write
>>>>>
>>>>>     cdef list some_list = []
>>>>>     cdef list* borrowed_ref = some_list
>>>>>
>>>>> and borrowed_ref would be a non-refcounted pointer to a Python  
>>>>> list.
>>>>> Assignments back to a normal reference would be allowed:
>>>>>
>>>>>     cdef list my_list = borrowed_ref   # increfs the pointer
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, a non-refcounted reference to a Python object is not  
>>>>> more than a
>>>>> bare pointer to a well-defined Python builtin/extension type  
>>>>> (including
>>>>> "object*").
>>>>>
>>> Well, there's the drawback of making the language more  
>>> complicated, and
>>> also I think the notation is confusing -- plain "object" is not by
>>> value, and "object*" is not a pointer to an "object", so to speak.
>>>
>>
>> I was trying to let the syntax emphasise that it *is* a pointer,  
>> not a
>> reference. A reference is special in Cython in that it handles ref- 
>> counting
>> for it. A pointer just behaves like any other pointer in the  
>> language.
>>
>> I agree that it's not flawless, but I think it makes sense and is  
>> unambiguous.
>>
> Let me put it this way: To me, "object*" somehow indicates PyObject**,
> since "object" is PyObject*. I find it confusing that "object" and
> "object*" are at the same "indirection level", so to speak.
>
> Also, would
>
> cdef object* x = ...
> print x[0]
>
> do a getitem on x, or returned a reference-counted copy of x? Not easy
> to guess from the syntax alone.
>
> Assuming a getitem (as that's a useful operation and the other is
> already served by <object>x), one is then inconsistent with everywhere
> else the *-notation is used.
>
> I'd be fine with almost any kind of syntax which is a superset of the
> current syntax -- "cdef nonmanaged object x", you name it. The problem
> with "object*" is that it is not immediately obvious to a reader  
> with a
> brief knowledge of Cython that it is fundamentally different from  
> "int*".
>
> This is a very subjective matter though.

My impressions are similar. A "borrowed" type modifier is fine by me.

- Robert

_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev

Reply via email to