Robert Bradshaw, 05.02.2010 12:18: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:00 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Christopher Barker wrote: >>>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>>> >>>>> The alternative then appears to be >>>>> >>>>> from cython.c.math cimport sqrt >>>>> from cython.python cimport Py_INCREF >>>>> >>>>> but that's awfully verbose. >>>>> >>>> I LIKE verbose imports -- that's what "from" is for. The import >>>> can be >>>> verbose (and clear, and unlikely to name clash), while the rest of >>>> your >>>> code is as terse as you like. >>>> >>>> If this is all cython stuff, it should live in the cython namespace.
When I first read this, it made me consider "cython.includes" as a sufficiently verbose prefix, but: >>> I like clib or libc (with or without the cython prefix) better than >>> just plain c. There's also the consideration question of supporting >>> pure mode, currently cython.* is all directives/other builtins, this >>> conflates the idea a bit. In the C++ branch we now have >>> cython.operator (where dereference, preincrement, etc. all live). >>> >> I'm rather against the cython prefix...I don't feel it is logical that >> "library stuff" that isn't really implemented in Cython itself lives >> there. It is a place for "Cython builtins" to me. > > Yeah, conflating the two doesn't seem natural. I agree. >> There's no difference in principle between, say, stdlib.h and >> opengl.h. >> >> How about just "libc" and "libcpp" then? > > Sure. And we should move all the Python ones to "python." +1 Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
