On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Behnel <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Bradshaw, 18.08.2010 18:30: >> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>> It also poses problems for classes that must be cdef classes because they >>> wrap C values, as in pretty much all wrapper code. The simple fact that >>> it's a cdef class doesn't imply that a user wants Python visible semantics >>> that diverge from Python and thus impact the users of the class. If we >>> can't help it, well, then that's how it must work. But we can clearly avoid >>> the problem in this case. >> >> This isn't a migration case. > > Right, the case at hand is about a possible optimisation. I still do not > understand why this is considered worth delaying the release of 0.13. It is > not a regression at all, it has been like this for ages. Instead of just > taking the time to find a suitable solution that we can apply under the > hood, everyone is rushing to force users to change their code to deploy > flags and decorators, either one way or another. > > Why can't we just get 0.13 out of the door with a safe default (like the > one I applied to the code base), that breaks no code and doesn't provide > any degradation in terms of performance, and then take our time to look for > a real solution that does not impact user code?
If the release is ready to go out, let's not delay it (though for us Sage folks really want this, so we'll follow up with a 0.13.1 soon, or just use a patched Cython in Sage). In terms of impacting user code, the only case it impacts is if people access __getattr__ by name. Is anyone doing that? - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
