#14017: Determine the correct argspec for python functions defined in cython
files
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: jason
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.7
Component: misc | Resolution:
Keywords: introspection cython argspec | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers:
Authors: | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
Actually a part of the current doctests expect wrong answers:
{{{
sage: from sage.misc.sageinspect import _sage_getargspec_cython as
sgc
# That is ok:
sage: sgc("cpdef double abc(self, x=None, base=0):")
(['self', 'x', 'base'], None, None, (None, 0))
sage: sgc("def __init__(self, x=None, unsigned int base=0):")
(['self', 'x', 'base'], None, None, (None, 0))
# The following is wrong, and is the main reason why we couldnt' simply
# put UniqueRepresentation into a Cython file to make it faster:
sage: sgc('def o(p, *q, r={}, **s) except? -1:')
(['p', '*q', 'r', '**s'], None, None, ({},))
# That is ok:
sage: sgc('cpdef how(r=(None, "u:doing?")):')
(['r'], None, None, ((None, 'u:doing?'),))
sage: sgc('def _(x="):"):')
(['x'], None, None, ('):',))
sage: sgc('def f(z = {(1,2,3): True}):\n return z')
(['z'], None, None, ({(1, 2, 3): True},))
# The following gives a valid function definition in a cython file,
# hence, there must be no error when determining the argspec
sage: sgc('def f(double x, z = {(1,2,3): True}):\n return z')
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
ValueError: Could not parse cython argspec
}}}
Last night I have coded something which I think is a finite state
automaton that correctly parses any argspec, provided that the given input
is valid in Cython. Hence, I do not claim that my code would detect all
possible syntax errors; but if there is no syntax error, then the output
should be the correct argspec.
In the above doctests, my code would give the correct results. But I need
some more tests at this point, and also I am not sure whether I should try
to detect some more syntactical problems.
For example, I currently have the reasonable answer
{{{
sage: sgc('def o(int * bla p, *q, r={}, **s) except? -1:')
(['p', 'r'], 'q', 's', ['{}'])
}}}
(here, `int * bla` is thought of as a type definition in Cython, which is
of course wrong but doesn't matter), but I also get something that could
easily be avoided:
{{{
sage: sgc('def o(int * bla p, *q, r={}, , **s) except? -1:')
(['p', 'r', 's'], 'q', None, ['{}'])
}}}
(here, `, **` is thought of as a type definition in Cython, but of course
it would be straight forward to recognise that there is one illegal comma
inserted).
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14017#comment:2>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
