[Cython] Utility Codes and templates

Robert Bradshaw robertwb at math.washington.edu
Tue Jul 26 08:46:53 CEST 2011

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 26.07.2011 06:29:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:07 AM, mark florisson
>>> It's now 'MyUtility' and
>>> 'MyUtility.proto'. If there's no objection to the ini-style header
>>> (with requirements and other metadata possibly), then I'll implement
>>> that one of these days.
>> One drawback with the ini style is that it detaches the metadata from
>> the code block itself (and require duplicating their names).
> The names are duplicated in the file already, since impl and proto are
> separated and can be anywhere in the file (e.g., you could put all protos at
> the top and all implementation parts further down). The advantages of
> putting in a header is that
> a) it's immediately visible from the top of the file what it contains
> b) the dependencies on other files are explicit and clearly visible, again,
> from the top of the file
> c) the metadata is easy and quick to parse, as the header is trivially
> separated from the rest
> d) only the header needs to be parsed in order to know what can be found in
> it or what other files are required to compile it
> e) we don't need to write our own parser, and the overall file format is
> trivial to parse

I prefer keeping the metadata close, but perhaps that's just a matter
of opinion. Slurping in the entire file and parsing the block headers
is pretty trivial as well, and with pre-fetching (on so many levels) I
don't think there's a technical advantage for files so small. For
those (likely common) cases where no metadata is required, I'm -1 on
having to manually keep a "table of contents."

- Robert

More information about the cython-devel mailing list