Stefan Behnel wrote: > Terry Reedy wrote: >> Do you have any plans to support/use 3.0 type annotations so that one >> could develop function-oriented code in 3.0 and then compile efficient C >> (for whatever CPython version) without adding Python-incompatible cdefs? > > That is still an official TODO, but there isn't currently any support for it, > nor any effort to implement it (patches obviously welcome). > > The problem is that it only applies to function parameters, not to local I was presuming some type inferencing for locals ;-) > variables or anything else, so the gain is actually very small. Why I said 'function-oriented'. > On the other > hand, the "pure Python mode", as it is currently implemented, is much more > powerful and allows you to annotate most things in Cython without loosing > the ability to run the code unchanged in plain Python (including Jython and > friends, although I never tested that). > > http://wiki.cython.org/pure Ah. Missed it. Very interesting and even better. How is one supposed to get there from the main page? http://wiki.cython.org/Cython Perhaps under "*Using early binding techniques to improve speed" you could add "* Early binding in pure Python code." or some such. > One really neat feature is that you can put a .pxd file next to your .py file > and let it override the function signatures and classes. So you do not even > need Py3 annotations, which have the obvious disadvantage of requiring Py3. That is not much of a disadvantage for code intended to be compiled. But the annotation is limited. Support for nested defs and generators is much more critical. Typo? Should 'typedef(cython.p_int)' be 'cython.typedef(cython.p_int)'? Also, the 'enhancement' page has separate misspelled 'seperate' twice. Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4