From matusvalo at gmail.com  Mon Mar  3 14:47:23 2025
From: matusvalo at gmail.com (matus valo)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 20:47:23 +0100
Subject: [Cython] Shared utility Option vs. Compilation Directive
Message-ID: <CAHm8GSjg_hX+RWuuAJ_KM7-UURey9ZRDi+3jsnT33ZtpnPL97Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All,

Based on the comment
https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6531#discussion_r1975502026 I would
like to start a discussion about using Option vs Compilation Directive.
Basically, we have 3 options:

1. Use PR https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6531 as is. I will proceed
with the rest of the comments.
2. Use `Option` directly with no further changes in the Cython codebase.
This is the initial implementation. I created a branch with a version of
the  PR with rollback of all changes related to the Compilation Directive
adjustments:
https://github.com/cython/cython/compare/master...matusvalo:shared_library_option?expand=1
3. Use code changes/cleanup in https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6646
but Shared Utility will be configured using `Option` instead of Compilation
directive (Option 2.). I am not sure it this point makes sense, only in
case that we want to keep changes by @da-woods <dw-git at d-woods.co.uk> improves
the code internals.

I would like to have an agreement on this topic before moving forward with
other comments in the PR.


Thanks,

Matus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/cython-devel/attachments/20250303/80a9a9dd/attachment.html>

From matusvalo at gmail.com  Mon Mar  3 15:29:11 2025
From: matusvalo at gmail.com (matus valo)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 21:29:11 +0100
Subject: [Cython] Shared utility Option vs. Compilation Directive
In-Reply-To: <4b2a7b64-4faf-4998-90bb-d00855ca1a5b@d-woods.co.uk>
References: <CAHm8GSjg_hX+RWuuAJ_KM7-UURey9ZRDi+3jsnT33ZtpnPL97Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4b2a7b64-4faf-4998-90bb-d00855ca1a5b@d-woods.co.uk>
Message-ID: <CAHm8GSh-hWBF0_3fKmcma29DsRChty5_FOx7WMJhxh0UO2xyRg@mail.gmail.com>

> I don't think 3 is worthwhile.

I tend to agree.

> I weakly prefer 1 to 2 on the basis that we were trying to get away from
Options where possible.

I think I have the same opinion. `Option` variant is much simpler and I
cannot see any benefit using a shared module with only a subset of .pyx
files.

Matus

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 at 21:07, da-woods <dw-git at d-woods.co.uk> wrote:

> Personally:
>
> I don't think 3 is worthwhile.
>
> I weakly prefer 1 to 2 on the basis that we were trying to get away from
> Options where possible.  However, this is probably a case where Options
> will usually be right (it forces a setting on every module that you're
> processing in a batch, which is what most people will want here. But maybe
> not everyone).
>
> David
>
>
> On 03/03/2025 19:47, matus valo wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Based on the comment
> https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6531#discussion_r1975502026 I would
> like to start a discussion about using Option vs Compilation Directive.
> Basically, we have 3 options:
>
> 1. Use PR https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6531 as is. I will
> proceed with the rest of the comments.
> 2. Use `Option` directly with no further changes in the Cython codebase.
> This is the initial implementation. I created a branch with a version of
> the  PR with rollback of all changes related to the Compilation Directive
> adjustments:
> https://github.com/cython/cython/compare/master...matusvalo:shared_library_option?expand=1
> 3. Use code changes/cleanup in https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6646
> but Shared Utility will be configured using `Option` instead of Compilation
> directive (Option 2.). I am not sure it this point makes sense, only in
> case that we want to keep changes by @da-woods <dw-git at d-woods.co.uk> improves
> the code internals.
>
> I would like to have an agreement on this topic before moving forward with
> other comments in the PR.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/cython-devel/attachments/20250303/261c47cc/attachment.html>

From dw-git at d-woods.co.uk  Mon Mar  3 15:07:39 2025
From: dw-git at d-woods.co.uk (da-woods)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 20:07:39 +0000
Subject: [Cython] Shared utility Option vs. Compilation Directive
In-Reply-To: <CAHm8GSjg_hX+RWuuAJ_KM7-UURey9ZRDi+3jsnT33ZtpnPL97Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHm8GSjg_hX+RWuuAJ_KM7-UURey9ZRDi+3jsnT33ZtpnPL97Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b2a7b64-4faf-4998-90bb-d00855ca1a5b@d-woods.co.uk>

Personally:

I don't think 3 is worthwhile.

I weakly prefer 1 to 2 on the basis that we were trying to get away from 
Options where possible.? However, this is probably a case where Options 
will usually be right (it forces a setting on every module that you're 
processing in a batch, which is what most people will want here. But 
maybe not everyone).

David


On 03/03/2025 19:47, matus valo wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Based on the comment 
> https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6531#discussion_r1975502026 I 
> would like to start a discussion about using Option vs Compilation 
> Directive. Basically, we have 3 options:
>
> 1. Use PR https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6531 as is. I will 
> proceed with the rest of the comments.
> 2. Use `Option` directly with no further changes in the Cython 
> codebase. This is the initial implementation. I created a branch with 
> a version of the? PR with rollback of all changes related to the 
> Compilation?Directive adjustments: 
> https://github.com/cython/cython/compare/master...matusvalo:shared_library_option?expand=1
> 3. Use code changes/cleanup in 
> https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/6646 but Shared Utility will be 
> configured using `Option` instead of Compilation directive (Option 
> 2.). I am not sure it this point makes sense, only in case that we 
> want to keep changes by @da-woods 
> <mailto:dw-git at d-woods.co.uk>?improves the code internals.
>
> I would like to have an agreement on this topic before moving forward 
> with other comments in?the PR.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/cython-devel/attachments/20250303/2c66af7d/attachment-0001.html>