If I parse you correctly, this would be great. - Michael
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:37:59 -0500, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 04:11 PM 12/9/04 -0500, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > > >On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 17:39 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > > > > The only thing that will fix the PR issue is to have a Python compiler > > > distributed as part of the language. It doesn't matter if it doesn't > > > support the full generality of Python, or even if it doesn't speed many > > > operations up much. The only real requirements are that it can be used to > > > produce "native" executables, and that it be an official part of the > > > language, not a separately-distributed tool like Psyco or Pyrex. Then, it > > > will perhaps be a sufficient "security blanket" to stop people FUDding > > > about it. > > > >I am aware that Pyrex is still in flux, so perhaps it is too soon to > >propose this even for 2.5, but I think it's worth bringing up anyway: I > >would like Pyrex to be distributed with the Python core. I agree that > >it should be modified to produce full .exe files and not just .dlls on > >Windows, but many potential users *are* seriously concerned about > >efficiency and not just simplifying distribution. > > +1 on all the stuff you said, with one minor exception. Pyrex-the-language > is often unpythonically ugly and verbose at present. If Python had an > official syntax for optional static type declaration, Pyrex's syntax could > be aligned with that, and that would at least eliminate most of the inline > 'cdef' ugliness, leaving only C type declarations and Python property > declarations as the main syntax issues to be resolved. (Maybe by using > something like the 'ctypes' API, and having the compiler recognize that > API, such that C is directly callable from Python anyway, so compiling or > interpreting Python makes no difference to ability to access C... but I > digress.) > > Of course, this would take some effort from the core developers, especially > Guido, to consider the various syntax needs and formulate official > solutions. But if it were done, the Python-vs.-Pyrex distinction could > fade away altogether, replaced with the meme, "just add type declarations > to slow parts, and tell Python you want the module compiled to C." > > IOW, if Pyrex is merely the name of a compiler, not a separate language, > then our master plan for world domination is complete. :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/michael.walter%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
