On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:04 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 23:59, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 June 2011 23:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 2 June 2011
On 3 June 2011 00:04, mark florisson wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 23:59, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 June 2011 23:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 23:13, Ro
On 2 June 2011 23:59, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2011 23:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
On 2 June 2011 23:13, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 23:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 June 2011 23:13, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
If any
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 23:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2011 06:39 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax
On 2 June 2011 23:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2011 23:13, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If anyone is assigning a Cython function to an object and then using
>
On 2 June 2011 23:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 06/02/2011 06:39 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
>>> The current implementation is
>>>
>>> ctypedef cytho
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 23:13, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>
>> If anyone is assigning a Cython function to an object and then using
>> it they're counting on the current non-binding be
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 06:39 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
>> The current implementation is
>>
>> ctypedef cython.fused_type(list, dict, object) fused_t
>>
>> This requ
On Jun 2, 2011 2:18 PM, "Dag Sverre Seljebotn"
wrote:
> If you only want this allowed in typedefs, then, being puristic, I think
that really a "fused type" is really different from a ctypedef, and that it
would warrant something like a new keyword.
>
> cdef fusedtype [list, dict, object] fused_t
On 2 June 2011 23:13, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>
> If anyone is assigning a Cython function to an object and then using
> it they're counting on the current non-binding behavior, and it will
> break. The speed is probably a lesse
On 06/02/2011 06:39 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
The current implementation is
ctypedef cython.fused_type(list, dict, object) fused_t
This requires an addition to the grammer to allow the "call" syntax in
a type declaratio
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
If anyone is assigning a Cython function to an object and then using
it they're counting on the current non-binding behavior, and it will
break. The speed is probably a lesser issue, which is what benchmarks
are for.
>>>
>>
On 2 June 2011 22:16, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2011 18:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Vitja Makarov
>>> wrote:
2011/6/2 Robert Bradshaw :
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Vitja Makaro
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 18:39, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
>> The current implementation is
>>
>> ctypedef cython.fused_type(list, dict, object) fused_t
>>
>> This requires an add
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 18:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Vitja Makarov
>> wrote:
>>> 2011/6/2 Robert Bradshaw :
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Vitja Makarov
wrote:
> 2011/6/1 mark florisson :
>>
On 2 June 2011 18:39, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
> The current implementation is
>
> ctypedef cython.fused_type(list, dict, object) fused_t
>
> This requires an addition to the grammer to allow the "call" syntax in
> a type dec
2011/6/2 Robert Bradshaw :
>> Initially bindings was written to support bound class methods (am I right?)
>> So when we use it for regular functions 'binding' in the name doesn't
>> reflect its purpose.
>
> There's three kinds of functions we create: PyCFunctions, binding
> PyCFunctions, and extens
On 2 June 2011 18:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2011/6/2 Robert Bradshaw :
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Vitja Makarov
>>> wrote:
2011/6/1 mark florisson :
> On 31 May 2011 20:25, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>
Not that my opinion carriers any weight, but I'm +1 on this.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Robert Bradshaw <
rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
> In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
> The current implementation is
>
>ctypedef cython.fused_type(list, dic
In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
The current implementation is
ctypedef cython.fused_type(list, dict, object) fused_t
This requires an addition to the grammer to allow the "call" syntax in
a type declaration, as well as special casing to make it allowed on
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/6/2 Robert Bradshaw :
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Vitja Makarov
>> wrote:
>>> 2011/6/1 mark florisson :
On 31 May 2011 20:25, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is bindings performance issue valuable?
>
> $
2011/6/2 Robert Bradshaw :
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2011/6/1 mark florisson :
>>> On 31 May 2011 20:25, Vitja Makarov wrote:
Hi!
Is bindings performance issue valuable?
$ cat bindbench.pyx
def wo_bindings():
pass
def
23 matches
Mail list logo