On 10 November 2014 20:23, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2014-11-06, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'd like to propose a more pythonic way to declare function pointer >>> types, namelye >>> >>> type0 (*[ident])(type1, type2, type3) >>> >>> would instead become >>> >>> (type1, type2, type3) -> type0 [ident] >>> >>> I have a pull request up at https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/333; >>> what do people think? >> >> we had a discussion with Volker about this few weeks ago - in my Cython code >> I >> needed to do, as he suggested, a workaround like this: >> >> int* vlamatrix "(int (*)[])" (int*) # a hack to get int (*)[] through >> cython >> >> This was for 2-dim arrays of variable length, and looks similar to the >> stuff here. >> >> IMHO it would be good to address this, too. > > Yeah. > >> I'd rather stick to C99 conventions in Cython. >> To me, using '->' for types looks way too close to what is used, with >> different semantics, in functional languages like Haskell or Coq. > > Actually, the proposed use of '->' *is* identical to Haskell in > semantics, i.e. "int -> int" is how you write a function taking and > returning an int. Of course in Python one has a single argument tuple > as input rather than currying.
well, I don't really see why ident is put at the end of the statement. As you know, Haskell-like it would be ident :: (type1, type2, type3) -> type0 if you work in postscript, then indeed putting ident at the end would be natural :-) Dima _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
