ANN: Pyrex 0.4.3

[holger krekel]

Ram Bhamidipaty wrote:
> Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> writes:
> 
> >     Bjorn> But surely in the context of Pyrex you could make assignment to
> >     Bjorn> builtins illegal? (after all Pyrex isn't Python, it just looks
> >     Bjorn> like it <wink>)
> > 
> > You'll have to ask Greg.  Even though Pyrex != Python, there is still a
> > price to be paid for what might seem like useful incompatibilities between
> > the two.
> > 
> 
> 
> Why not just check if the range() object is the one that would have
> been returned by the builtin function? If the object is the normal
> one then you know you can generate C code - and if its not the normal
> one then you can stick to the curreny python behaviour... you get the
> speed you want without introducing a new syntax.

Checking for the "correct" builtin could only happen at runtime but
the C-stuff needs to be rendered at compile ("module creation") time.

But anyway, the whole 'for-loop-for-numbers' seems like a minor
optimization and i wouldn't introduce new syntax for it.    

Even optimizing software like Pyrex can be prematurely optimized.

cheers,

    holger