[Cython] Cython 0.11 beta

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Jan 25, 2009, at 12:50 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:

>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> After much development, it looks like Cython 0.11 is getting stable
>> enough to release. Please try out the beta, which is the current tip
>> of sage-devel.
>
> Thanks, Robert. I bet you meant "cython-devel", though. ;)

Yep, oops.

> I recently went through the remaining bugs for 0.11 and filtered  
> out some
> that can wait for future releases. We should decide which of the  
> remaining
>  bugs we consider blockers or critical for this release, and then
> concentrate on fixing those for the release candidate.
>
> http://trac.cython.org/cython_trac/report/3

Thanks. I'll try to go through that on Monday. FYI, I was typically  
using the "wishlist" milestone as things that would be nice to have,  
but aren't bugs or deficiencies per se, nor have any urgency.

In the meantime, I hope other people try it out so we (and they)  
don't have any surprises when we release. Sage compiles and passes  
all 75000+ doctests, I assume the same for lxml?

> For my part, I think the bugs that generate wrong or dangerous code  
> for
> built-in types are worth fixing (#166, #158). Also, most of what  
> results in
> a compiler crash or a runtime crash is probably critical.
>
> I cannot really comment on the buffer bugs. Some of them look more  
> like
> missing features (i.e. minor issues) rather than major bugs.

Hopefully Dag can comment on these, but I think your assessment is  
correct.

> There are also a few bugs that (I guess) you added just as a  
> reminder for
> yourself. It would still be good if you could add some comments to  
> make
> them clearer to others (if only to prevent people from submitting
> duplicates or from not submitting non-duplicates), especially if they
> depend on finishing up other things before being worth another take in
> their own right.

Yep, I'll do this.

> I assume that's the case for closures? A little status
> report in that ticket would be very helpful. It's the only major  
> (non 0.11)
> bug that keeps us from compiling the majority of the Python  
> regression test
> suite.

No progress has been made on that recently, I have ideas but haven't  
had a solid block of time to sit down and work on it.

> Finally, it would be good if we had one test case for each open bug. I
> added a directory 'tests/bugs' to keep them. The naming convention is:
> descriptivename_Txyz.pyx, 'xyz' being the ticket number in trac.  
> They will
> not be part of a normal test run, but you can enable them by  
> selecting a
> bug test explicitly like this (e.g. for ticket 5):
>
>     runtests.py -T5

Good idea.

- Robert