[Cython] Sage 3.2.3 vs. cython 0.11-devel

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Jan 15, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Michael Abshoff wrote:

> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Michael Abshoff wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>>> Ok, adding std:: makes the code compile, but this is not the real  
>>> fix.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> and again we are having a problem with min and so on. Cython seems
>>> to be
>>>   at fault for all the above issues. I.e. for some reason we end up
>>> using symbols from Sage's library like set, min, gmax and so on
>>> that in
>>> 0.10 we did not use. For C++ we can monkey patch around them which
>>> is a
>>> bad idea and for C code we seem to be screwed for now.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? I know way to little about Cython internals to have an  
>>> idea
>>> what is going on here :)
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this--from what I understand of what you sent
>> it's symbols like "min" and "set" that are getting exported to the
>> namespace that weren't before?
>
>
> Yes, I avoided the term namespace since there is no meaning like  
> that in
> C as I assume you all know well.

Yeah. Scope would be a better word, and there's only one global one.

> Obviously calling "internal" functions
> stuff like min or max is a disaster waiting to happen. On the other  
> hand
> it is ironic that std's set was picked up, but that can be easily  
> fixed
> for C++ code, but not C code. Given that gmax from gsl and pari  
> collided
> lead me to the conclusion you also reached above.
>
>> I'm not sure what happened between
>> 0.10.3 and now that would call this--did anyone include any new  
>> headers?
>
> I don't know, but I assume you mean this in the context of Cython.

Yes, I'm meaning in the context of Cython. Either that or someone  
changed how (C++?) files get processed. I certainly haven't done  
anything in that area, but it's possible that someone else did.

A random thought, this couldn't be an artifact of all the char* ->  
const char* changes, could it be?

- Robert