On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:13 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:08:12PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:54 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > Previous discussions in this thread [1,2] have discussed the issues
>> > associated with overloading the 'public'
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:08:12PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:54 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > Previous discussions in this thread [1,2] have discussed the issues
> > associated with overloading the 'public' keyword. For an example of
> > the difficulties this causes
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:54 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> Previous discussions in this thread [1,2] have discussed the issues
> associated with overloading the 'public' keyword. For an example of
> the difficulties this causes, see the ugly workaround [3] in my recent
> commit [4]. Definately wort
Previous discussions in this thread [1,2] have discussed the issues
associated with overloading the 'public' keyword. For an example of
the difficulties this causes, see the ugly workaround [3] in my recent
commit [4]. Definately worth fixing this syntax.
How do syntax changes with deprecations
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 07:11:48PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:14 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:01:43AM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:48 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:11:03PM -080
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:14 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:01:43AM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:48 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:11:03PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM, W. Trev
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:01:43AM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:48 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:11:03PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> > An easy, if uglier, workaround would b
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:48 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:11:03PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > An easy, if uglier, workaround would be to prepend attributes with the
>> > class name, e.g. CBinding.visibilit
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:11:03PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > An easy, if uglier, workaround would be to prepend attributes with the
> > class name, e.g. CBinding.visibility -> CBinding.c_binding_visiblity.
> > Then the Ctx class cou
W. Trevor King, 22.02.2011 21:02:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:18:21PM +0100, Stefan Behnel wrote:
I also doubt that Cython allows you to call an attribute "cdef", you'll
need to change that.
It seems to work for me:
>>> import Cython.Compiler.Parsing as P
>>> P.__file__
'Cython/Compi
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:18:21PM +0100, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> W. Trevor King, 22.02.2011 18:55:
>> > I've been working on a more explicit parser that removes the ambiguity
>> > behind the various visibilities. This will help me ensure
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:18:21PM +0100, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> W. Trevor King, 22.02.2011 18:55:
> > I've been working on a more explicit parser that removes the ambiguity
> > behind the various visibilities. This will help me ensure proper
> > impolementation of my cdef-ed enums/structs/..., an
W. Trevor King, 22.02.2011 18:55:
I've been working on a more explicit parser that removes the ambiguity
behind the various visibilities. This will help me ensure proper
impolementation of my cdef-ed enums/structs/..., and make it easier to
update visibility syntax in the future. Take a look an
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 06:31:26PM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > Ah. Sorry for all the c(p)def/qualifier confusion, but I'm trying to
> > > consolidate the way these
Stefan Behnel wrote:
The same argument could be brought up against
"cdef" vs. "def" (between which the semantic difference is *huge*)
There are a couple of differences:
- 'cdef' and 'def' look very different (at least to me) because
they *start* with a different letter. Whereas 'cdef' and 'c
Greg Ewing, 21.02.2011 22:12:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
With "preferred way", I was suggesting that we could *deprecate*
cdef public int x
cdef readonly object y
for cdef class properties in favour of
cpdef int x
cpdef readonly object y
I think I've just realised one of the reasons for my gut
d
Stefan Behnel wrote:
With "preferred way", I was suggesting that we could *deprecate*
cdef public int x
cdef readonly object y
for cdef class properties in favour of
cpdef int x
cpdef readonly object y
I think I've just realised one of the reasons for my gut
dislike of the "
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 21.02.2011 19:11:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> W. Trevor King, 20.02.2011 00:31:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2
On 21 February 2011 15:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 21.02.2011 19:11:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> W. Trevor King, 20.02.2011 00:31:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at
Robert Bradshaw, 21.02.2011 19:11:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
W. Trevor King, 20.02.2011 00:31:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
It is unclear to me what `cdef public struct` m
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> W. Trevor King, 20.02.2011 00:31:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
It is unclear to me what `cdef public struct` means. I think it
Stefan Behnel wrote:
Given that Cython has "cpdef" already, why not just use that?
That seems like a reasonable idea.
--
Greg
___
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:09:42AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > Hmm, that means that
> >
> > cimport numpy
> > a = numpy.numpy.ndarray
> >
> > also compiles.
>
> Compiles and runs, or just compiles?
You're right. Cython compilation worked, but it didn't run:
W. Trevor King wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
cython $ grep class Cython/Includes/numpy.pxd
ctypedef class numpy.dtype [object PyArray_Descr]:
ctypedef extern class numpy.flatiter [o
Greg Ewing, 20.02.2011 21:13:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
BTW, the "public" keyword is the wrong thing to use here, as that
actually controls name mangling and (c-level) symbol exporting. The
fact that means a different thing for members than for top-level
symbols isn't ideal, but at least it's unam
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
BTW, the "public" keyword is the wrong thing to use here, as that
actually controls name mangling and (c-level) symbol exporting. The
fact that means a different thing for members than for top-level
symbols isn't ideal, but at least it's unambiguous as members need not
be
W. Trevor King, 20.02.2011 03:32:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
I think it's better to keep cdef meaning "backed by C data", not
necessarily "written using C syntax", since you're trying to do more
with Cy
W. Trevor King, 20.02.2011 00:31:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
It is unclear to me what `cdef public struct` means. I think it
should mean "Python bindings can alter this struct's definition",
which does
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevo
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:47:41PM -080
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:47:41PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, W. Trev
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:04:16PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:47:41PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> > However, the filename <-> module mappi
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:47:41PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>>
>> >> > If you try to override anything in a .so compiled module at runtime,
>> >> > you'd get the same kind of e
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:47:41PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>
> >> > If you try to override anything in a .so compiled module at runtime,
> >> > you'd get the same kind of error you currently do trying to rebind a
> >> > compiled clas
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> So should I go ahead and update the expected error messages in my branch?
Yes.
___
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:52:38PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 03:53:13PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> > * Extending class cdef/cdpef/public/re
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 03:53:13PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > * Extending class cdef/cdpef/public/readonly handling to cover enums,
>> > stucts, and possibly unions.
>>
>>
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > If you try to override anything in a .so compiled module at runtime,
>> > you'd get the same kind of error you currently do trying to rebind a
>> > compiled class' method.
>>
>> That's the desired behavior for statically-bound globals,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 03:53:13PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > * Extending class cdef/cdpef/public/readonly handling to cover enums,
> > stucts, and possibly unions.
>
> This seems like the best first step.
>
> > Problems with me ge
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:08:04PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:25:10PM -0800, Robert B
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> A side effect of this cpdef change would be that now even bare .pxd
>>> files (no matching .pyx) would have a Python presence,
>>
>> Where would it live? Would we just create this module (in essence,
>> acting as if the
Robert Bradshaw, 18.02.2011 23:08:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
Compilation is an issue. I think that .pxd files should be able to be
cythoned directly, sin
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:25:10PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM, W. Trevor King wrote
Robert Bradshaw, 18.02.2011 00:54:
Forgot reply-all... didin't we have this discussion before about
making that the default for this list as it is by-far the most common
desired behavior?
Yes we did. And I guess it would be "the default" for mailing lists if it
was just that: a default, not so
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:25:10PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:55:19PM -0800, Robert Brad
Forgot reply-all... didin't we have this discussion before about
making that the default for this list as it is by-far the most common
desired behavior?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:25:10PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:55:19PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> > What I'm missing is a way to bind the M
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> This thread is coming over to cython-dev (and the new cython-devel)
> from cython-users because it turns out it will probably require
> chaning the Cython code. To get everyone who hasn't been following on
> cython-users up to speed, here's
On 17 February 2011 11:35, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:53:15AM -0300, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>> Cython could certainly support "cpdef struct", it is just a matter to
>> define a proposal and find a contributor to implement it :-)
>
> Is there a CEP template (a la PEPs 9 and
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:53:15AM -0300, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> Cython could certainly support "cpdef struct", it is just a matter to
> define a proposal and find a contributor to implement it :-)
Is there a CEP template (a la PEPs 9 and 12) that should be discussed
on the mailing list, or do I
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 08:29:41AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> cpdef struct Foo:
> cpdef public int intA
> cpdef readonly int intB
> cdef void *ptr
Oops, for consistency with classes, the variables declarations should
read `cdef public` and and `cdef readonly`. Perh
This thread is coming over to cython-dev (and the new cython-devel)
from cython-users because it turns out it will probably require
chaning the Cython code. To get everyone who hasn't been following on
cython-users up to speed, here's a summary of what I'm trying to do:
That's what I was trying t
52 matches
Mail list logo
