On 3 May 2011 10:44, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 10:42 AM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 3 May 2011 10:07, Dag Sverre Seljebotn<d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2011 09:59 AM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3 May 2011 00:21, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:56 PM, mark florisson
>>>>> <markflorisso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 May 2011 18:24, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:38 AM, mark florisson
>>>>>>> <markflorisso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A remaining issue which I'm not quite certain about is the
>>>>>>>> specialization through subscripts, e.g. func[double]. How should
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> work from Python space (assuming cpdef functions)? Would we want to
>>>>>>>> pass in cython.double etc? Because it would only work for builtin
>>>>>>>> types, so what about types that aren't exposed to Python but can
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> be coerced to and from Python? Perhaps it would be better to pass in
>>>>>>>> strings instead. I also think e.g. "int *" reads better than
>>>>>>>> cython.pointer(cython.int).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's whey we offer cython.p_int. On that note, we should support
>>>>>>> cython.astype("int *") or something like that. Generally, I don't
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> encoding semantic information in strings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OTHO, since it'll be a mapping of some sort, there's no reason we
>>>>>>> can't support both. Most of the time it should dispatch (at runtime
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> compile time) based on the type of the arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have an argument type that is composed of a fused type, would be
>>>>>> want the indexing to specify the composed type or the fused type? e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ctypedef floating *floating_p
>>>>>
>>>>> How should we support this? It's clear in this case, but only because
>>>>> you chose good names. Another option would be to require
>>>>> parameterization floating_p, with floating_p[floating] the
>>>>> "as-yet-unparameterized" version. Explicit but redundant. (The same
>>>>> applies to struct as classes as well as typedefs.) On the other had,
>>>>> the above is very succinct and clear in context, so I'm leaning
>>>>> towards it. Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Well, it is already supported. floating is fused, so any composition
>>>> of floating is also fused.
>>>>
>>>>>> cdef func(floating_p x):
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then do we want
>>>>>>
>>>>>> func[double](10.0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> func[double_p](10.0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to specialize func?
>>>>>
>>>>> The latter.
>>>>
>>>> I'm really leaning towards the former. What if you write
>>>>
>>>> cdef func(floating_p x, floating_p *y):
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Then specializing floating_p using double_p sounds slightly
>>>> nonsensical, as you're also specializing floating_p *.
>>>
>>> I made myself agree with both of you in turn, but in the end I think I'm
>>> with Robert here.
>>>
>>> Robert's approach sounds perhaps slightly simpler if you think of it this
>>> way:
>>>
>>> ctypedef fused_type(float, double) floating
>>> ctypedef floating* floating_p
>>>
>>> is really a short-hand for
>>>
>>> ctypedef fused_type(float*, double*) floating_p
>>>
>>> I.e., when using a fused_type in a typedef you simply get a new
>>> fused_type.
>>> This sounds in a sense simpler without extra complexity getting in the
>>> way
>>> ("which was my fused base type again...").
>>>
>>> Dag SVerre
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cython-devel mailing list
>>> cython-devel@python.org
>>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
>>>
>>
>> Ok, if those typedefs should be disallowed then specialization through
>> indexing should then definitely get the types listed in the fused_type
>> typedef.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. What is disallowed exactly?
ctypedef cython.fused_type(float, double) floating
ctypedef floating *floating_p
That is what you meant right? Because prohibiting that makes it easier
to see where a type is variable (as the entire type always is, and not
some base type of it).
> DS
> _______________________________________________
> cython-devel mailing list
> cython-devel@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
>
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
