Hi, On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Stefan Behnel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Haoyu, > > your GSoC branch has been around for a while now. Given that 0.13 will be > out soon (soon-isher than ever before), is there anything that you consider > safe enough to get merged into mainline after the release? > > IMHO, any feature patch is a candidate, especially when it depends on > currently illegal syntax (i.e. not impacting existing code). Everything that > changes current behaviour is worth considering if it fixes a bug or Python > compatibility issue but may have to wait for 0.14 if it impacts code that > currently works with 0.13. > > BTW, it looks like only two trac tickets are currently assigned to you. I > know you've been working on a lot more tickets, so it would be good to have > your name on all of those that you provided a patch for. > > http://trac.cython.org/cython_trac/query?owner=haoyu >
I'm not able to assign tickets to me on the trac. Could you (or Robert?) give me the proper right to do that? Thanks! On the Rietveld code review, there's a list of patches I've worked on: http://codereview.appspot.com/user/Haoyu%20Bai > From a quick look, I think #488 (ellipsis) is safe, but I'd like to see some > more syntax tests - I bet there are some in Python's own test suite. > Looking into Python's test suite, one potential issue is Python recognize ". .." as syntax error while my implementation will still accept it as Ellipsis. Could we tolerate this kind of divergent? > Ticket #487 (multiple 'with' statements) looks nice, but clearly lacks test. > I can't even see a test that makes sure the context managers are executed in > the correct nesting order, neither can I see anything that tests the > chaining of cleanup actions during exception propagation, let alone partial > propagation in cases where one of the context managers swallows an > exception. Again, Python's test suite will provide hints on better tests > here. > Thanks. I just didn't aware there are so many aspects should be tested. I'll learn from Python's tests. Craig also pointed out the lacking of tests in the code review. I'll get the problem fixed. > Ticket #490 (nonlocal), while I'd be happy to get it in, seems too big a > change to go into 0.13.1. > Yes I agree. This might be too big a change. > It seems you also have a fix for #477. That would be another candidate for > 0.13.1. Note that the related test case doesn't actually test that the > argument typing has the expected effect. This could be done using a tree > assertion based on coercion nodes. > The fix for #477 is part of the big pure Python enhancement patch. Would it be worth to extract it out as a smaller patch for just this issue? And yes, to test argument typing what I did is to test whether the coercion is done by, eg. feed in the function an integer and then see if it returns a float. Checking for the coercion node is a better idea. I guess use the typeof() should also work? > Stefan > The other patches that could be considered to be included in the 0.13.1 release: #422 - bug in setting __module__: This is just bug-fixing. So should be safe to be included. #423 - Support explicit exception chaining syntax (PEP 3134): This may also lack of sufficient tests. #542 - Support for relative import: I'm not sure about this. Should be able to be included since the syntax is not valid before. Thanks! -- Haoyu BAI School of Computing, National University of Singapore. _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
