mark florisson, 26.07.2011 10:57:
On 26 July 2011 08:46, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Stefan Behnel<stefan...@behnel.de> wrote:
Robert Bradshaw, 26.07.2011 06:29:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:07 AM, mark florisson
It's now 'MyUtility' and
'MyUtility.proto'. If there's no objection to the ini-style header
(with requirements and other metadata possibly), then I'll implement
that one of these days.
One drawback with the ini style is that it detaches the metadata from
the code block itself (and require duplicating their names).
The names are duplicated in the file already, since impl and proto are
separated and can be anywhere in the file (e.g., you could put all protos at
the top and all implementation parts further down). The advantages of
putting in a header is that
a) it's immediately visible from the top of the file what it contains
b) the dependencies on other files are explicit and clearly visible, again,
from the top of the file
c) the metadata is easy and quick to parse, as the header is trivially
separated from the rest
d) only the header needs to be parsed in order to know what can be found in
it or what other files are required to compile it
e) we don't need to write our own parser, and the overall file format is
trivial to parse
I prefer keeping the metadata close, but perhaps that's just a matter
of opinion. Slurping in the entire file and parsing the block headers
is pretty trivial as well, and with pre-fetching (on so many levels) I
don't think there's a technical advantage for files so small. For
those (likely common) cases where no metadata is required, I'm -1 on
having to manually keep a "table of contents."
Right, you woud only list metadata if there is something worthwhile to
list. Otherwise you just omit it. (Perhaps that was not what Stefan
had in mind though, I'm not sure).
I don't care so much here, but I consider the file header an interface
description. I.e. you could also include utility code in a file that is
only available as dependencies to other utility code, simply by not listing
it in the header. Allowing to skip the header makes the semantics a bit
more ugly here.
But as I said, I wouldn't mind if the header was optional, as long as
that's easy enough to handle.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
