On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2. Using a function called "verify" to create stuff. This may sound like a >> naming bikeshed, but it's not. It ties in to the question - why is this >> needed? > > We welcome a better opinion of name (indeed verify is not that great). > This elevates ABI to API so either invokes the C compiler or reads > stuff from the cache.
Have you considered the name "create_api"? After all, you're essentially creating a Python API given a C header declaration and a specified extension module to cache the result. The details on extension module caching, and the fact that it won't even look for a C compiler if the extension module is already available should also be in the main section of the docs on the verification step rather than only being down in the internal documentation for cffi.verifier.Verifier Cheers, Nick. P.S. I created both of those as tracker issues: - https://bitbucket.org/cffi/cffi/issue/59/missing-content-in-cffiverify - https://bitbucket.org/cffi/cffi/issue/60/proposed-rename-for-verify-and-verifier -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
