On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> wrote: > Dear Cython developers, > > I'm writing this in response to Robert's "I'd really rather deprecate .pxi > files completely". > > Can you please explain what you have against .pxi files?
They're neither necessary nor pythonic. Even C++ is trying to move away from #includes to proper modules. On a more pragmatic note, includes add complexities to dependency tracking (among other things) and we still have cruft from abuse of pxi files, e.g. https://github.com/cython/cython/blob/16ad9e21da64c4de4f964980ad1b8c18ca70035b/Cython/Compiler/ExprNodes.py#L891 > I know they have > been abused and 95% of the historic use cases should be replaced by other > means. However, that alone is not sufficient reason to stop supporting them: > there is still the 5% of cases where they are really useful. Every single case I can think of would be better done by using cimports or preprocessing via a proper templating (or at least preprocessing) utility. Now cysignals is the kind of package that might be doing something tricky that makes this a special case, but even then I'd call that 0.5% not 5%. I need to dive into that deeper. > I think that you should continue to support .pxi files on a same level as > .pxd files. I still do not understand why > https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/392 was refused and it seems that > https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/483 is going to be refused too. > > Jeroen Demeyer. > _______________________________________________ > cython-devel mailing list > cython-devel@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
