Nikita Nemkin, 03.03.2013 08:39:
> Please review my feature proposal to add Py_UNICODE* string support
> for better Windows interoperability:
> https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/191
>
> This is motivated by my current work that involves calling lots of Windows
> APIs.
>
> If people are intere
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Nikita Nemkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm new to this list and to Cython internals.
>
> Reporting two recently found bugs:
>
> 1. Explicit cast fails unexpectedly:
>
>ctypedef char* LPSTR
>cdef LPSTR c_str = b"ascii"
>c_str # Failure: Python obje
Hi,
Please review my feature proposal to add Py_UNICODE* string support
for better Windows interoperability:
https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/191
This is motivated by my current work that involves calling lots of Windows
APIs.
If people are interested I can elaborate on some important p
Zaur Shibzukhov, 02.03.2013 18:55:
> 2013/3/2 Stefan Behnel:
>>> I think you could even pass in two flags, one for wraparound and one for
>>> boundscheck, and then just evaluate them appropriately in the existing "if"
>>> tests above. That should allow both features to be supported independently
>>
2013/3/2 Stefan Behnel :
>> I think you could even pass in two flags, one for wraparound and one for
>> boundscheck, and then just evaluate them appropriately in the existing "if"
>> tests above. That should allow both features to be supported independently
>> in a fast way.
>
> https://github.com/
Hi,
the last pull request looks good to me now.
https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/189
Any more comments on it?
Stefan
___
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
Stefan Behnel, 28.02.2013 22:16:
> ZS, 28.02.2013 21:07:
>> 2013/2/28 Stefan Behnel:
This allows to write unicode text parsing code almost at C speed
mostly in python (+ .pxd defintions).
>>>
>>> I suggest simply adding a constant flag argument to the existing function
>>> that states if
Robert Bradshaw, 01.03.2013 09:25:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Zaur Shibzukhov wrote:
> I think you could even pass in two flags, one for wraparound and one for
> boundscheck, and then just evaluate them appropriately in the existing
> "if"
> tests above. That should allow
