ANN: Pyrex 0.4.3

[Greg Ewing]

> There are pros and cons to a new construct, as many noticed already.
> If Pyrex offers me a `for from' construct, I guess I'll use it.  But I
> would have preferred to write Pyrex the same as I write Python on this
> matter.

I don't have any philosophical objection to assuming that builtin
names have their usual bindings. But optimising "for x in range(...)"
in this way wouldn't be easy, given the way Pyrex is currently
structured. By the time the compiler knows that the "range" being
referred to is the built-in one, it's already built a parse tree on
the assumption that a function call is going to be made.

I may tackle this problem later, but there are other things to be done
first.

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc.  |
greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+