[Cython] Fused types syntax
markflorisson88 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 23:42:28 CEST 2011
On 2 June 2011 23:31, Robert Bradshaw <robertwb at math.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> <d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no> 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 requires an addition to the grammer to allow the "call" syntax in
>>> a type declaration, as well as special casing to make it allowed only
>>> in a typedef. What about
>>> cython.fused_type[list, dict, object].
>>> One advantage is that indexing is already valid in type declarations,
>>> and its the typical syntax for parameterized types. Thoughts? Any
>>> other ideas?
>> I don't really like overloading  even more, and I think () (or, perhaps,
>> 'fused_type([list, dict, object])').
>> But I don't feel very strongly about it.
>> 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
>> That's rather horrible, but you get the gist. The thing is, once you use a
>> ctypeudef, you really should allow
>> def f(fused_type(float, double) x, fused_type(float, double) y): ...
>> but then, how many fused types do you have, one or two?
> Two, and you can't refer to them. Such anonymous types could be handy
> for one-off functions, e.g.
> def f(fused_type[list, dict, object] x): ...
> but maybe that's not needed.
>> So this makes it seem to me that using ctypedef is a rather horrible hack.
> Yeah, this is the crux of the issue. (To be clear, Mark's
> implementation is good, it's our syntax that's hacky). It's perhaps
> less ugly than
> introducing a new keyword. A crazy idea:
> cdef fused floating_t:
> long double
> (in analogy with how we declare types like structs and enums).
I like that syntax, the bad thing about ctypedef for me is that
everything goes on one line, at which point you have to start breaking
them if they get too long (which can happen quite easily with lenghty
names like 'long double complex'), which looks awkward.
So much for trying to reduce grammar changes, though :)
>> But, like I said, I don't feel strongly about this.
>>> P.S. Anyone remember buffers and C++ templated types are dissallowed
>>> as typedefs?
>> As for buffers I just think I never got around to it...
> And in that case you can't just punt the typedef to C :).
> - Robert
> cython-devel mailing list
> cython-devel at python.org
More information about the cython-devel