Adding T_SIZET to structmember.h
After a rather long hacking on Cython in order to support 'Py_ssize_t' and 'size_t' the right way, I would like to propose the inclusion of a new T_SIZET in structmember.h in order to suport 'size_t' struct fields with PyMemberDef. Would such addition be accepted for 2.7 and 3.1? -- Lisandro Dalcín --------------- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Lisandro Dalcin
I would like to propose the inclusion of a new T_SIZET in structmember.h in order to suport 'size_t' struct fields with PyMemberDef. Would such addition be accepted for 2.7 and 3.1?
Please open a feature request at bugs.python.org, and we'll find out! A working patch would probably be helpful. (It sounds like a sensible addition to me.) Mark
Done, http://bugs.python.org/issue5248
Mark, the patch is not trivial, I cannot spend time on this until this
is accepted. Hope you understand.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Mark Dickinson
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Lisandro Dalcin
wrote: I would like to propose the inclusion of a new T_SIZET in structmember.h in order to suport 'size_t' struct fields with PyMemberDef. Would such addition be accepted for 2.7 and 3.1?
Please open a feature request at bugs.python.org, and we'll find out! A working patch would probably be helpful.
(It sounds like a sensible addition to me.)
Mark
-- Lisandro Dalcín --------------- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594
Martin, I was not clear enough. Please, just tell me: Do you believe
that this addition do make sense? Would you reject it for some reason
(other than a bad patch) ?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"
Mark, the patch is not trivial, I cannot spend time on this until this is accepted. Hope you understand.
I certainly do understand. So it's likely not going to happen.
Regards, Martin
-- Lisandro Dalcín --------------- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594
Martin, I was not clear enough. Please, just tell me: Do you believe that this addition do make sense? Would you reject it for some reason (other than a bad patch) ?
I would be +0. All other integral types support both signed and signed fields, why not size_t. Regards, Martin
participants (3)
-
"Martin v. Löwis"
-
Lisandro Dalcin
-
Mark Dickinson