Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > (1) What "int(*foo)() nogil with gil" does actually mean?
It means that the function is safe to call without the gil, and that it will acquire the gil before entering the body of the function. > (2) "int(*foo)() nogil with gil" is redundant, as "int(*foo)() with > gil" would be enough (i.e., implies "nogil"). Yes, it's redundant, but the parser would have to go out of its way to disallow it, and I can't see a strong reason to do that. > (3) I "int (*foo)() except* nogil" is illegal syntax, but "int > (*foo)() except* with gil" is legal. That could be improved. The options really ought to be accepted in any order. Feel free to submit a patch. :-) -- Greg _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
