[Python-3000] how about switching to a preprocessor? (Re: A better way to initialize PyTypeObject) (original) (raw)

Mike Klaas mike.klaas at gmail.com
Sun Dec 3 00:09:35 CET 2006

On 12/2/06, Fredrik Lundh <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:

> Regardless, one could take a Pyrex bent on this and having Python-like > method declarations but have C as the code body::

(some days, I wonder if we shouldn't just include Pyrex and tell every- one to use that for all their extension work. Greg? how much work would it be to equip Pyrex with a "retargetable" backend?)

+1. Pyrex makes extension writing significantly less painful. Perhaps the right path would be to add a mode that de-emphasized the python-compatability aspect of pyrex (automatic python <-> c conversion points), and added support for some of the things necessary in c but currently difficult in pyrex (like calling the initialization macro of a PyCObject). Add string, list, sequence, dict types, and a few restrictions (like on overriding built-ins) and you're close to something that can generate idiomatic c.

Reducing the pyrex magic and adding more detailed errors to the code generator should eliminate much of the "code-peering" that is currently necessary (at least, by me) when writing extensions.

regards, -MIke

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list