On 26 July 2011 11:26, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > 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.
Right, in that case I think the solution is quite appealing. > Stefan > _______________________________________________ > 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
