On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2014-11-06, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to propose a more pythonic way to declare function pointer >> types, namelye >> >> type0 (*[ident])(type1, type2, type3) >> >> would instead become >> >> (type1, type2, type3) -> type0 [ident] >> >> I have a pull request up at https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/333; >> what do people think? > > we had a discussion with Volker about this few weeks ago - in my Cython code I > needed to do, as he suggested, a workaround like this: > > int* vlamatrix "(int (*)[])" (int*) # a hack to get int (*)[] through > cython > > This was for 2-dim arrays of variable length, and looks similar to the > stuff here. > > IMHO it would be good to address this, too.
Yeah. > I'd rather stick to C99 conventions in Cython. > To me, using '->' for types looks way too close to what is used, with > different semantics, in functional languages like Haskell or Coq. Actually, the proposed use of '->' *is* identical to Haskell in semantics, i.e. "int -> int" is how you write a function taking and returning an int. Of course in Python one has a single argument tuple as input rather than currying. _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
