[Cython] Prototype for parametrized types

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:30 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>> Yeah, it could get ugly: cython.types.pointer(cython.types.pointer
>>> (cython.types.int))."
>>
>> I think "cython.types" is too longwinded anyway, in practice it  
>> would be:
>>
>> import cython.types as c
>
> wouldn't that have to be
>
>     cimport cython.types as c
>
> ?
>
> Although that would break Python compatibility again, right?
>
> That's somewhat unfortunate...
>
> BTW, what would be provide to keep up Python compatibility anyway?  
> Would there
> be a fake importable package like this just to make the code work  
> in Python?
> You'd have to ship that with you Cython/Python code, then ...

Yep, there'd be a "fake" cython module that one could import. It  
would be cool if it could actually do ctypes to emulate some of the  
stuff before actually compiling. I don't really see any way of  
providing the rich set of names we need to make executable python  
code that can also be compiled.

>> c.ptr(c.ptr(c.int))
>>
>> Which isn't *that* bad? And one could provide all kind of convenience
>> pre-declared names:
>>
>> c.pint = c.ptr(c.int)
>> c.ppint = ...
>> c.pchar = ...
>> c.ppchar = ...
>>
>> Perhaps just make a convention of providing up to three "ppp"- 
>> types for
>> every type, and then have a parametrized type
>>
>> c.ptrs(6, c.int)
>>
>> if you really want to do int******.
>>
>> PChar is already a well-known synonym for char* in some codebases.
>
> +1 here, although I'd call it "p_int" and "pp_int" instead of a  
> good ol'
> "pint". :)
>
> And c.ptrs() is better written as "c.pointer(c.int, levels=6)" and  
> maybe
> DEF-assigned to a name somewhere in the code.

I see all this stuff as syntactic sugar that wouldn't usually get  
run, rather they would be compiler hints.

- Robert