[Cython] [cython-users] Cython .pxd introspection: listing defined constants

[W. Trevor King]

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:52:38PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, W. Trevor King <wking at drexel.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 03:53:13PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM, W. Trevor King <wking at drexel.edu> wrote:
> >> > * Extending class cdef/cdpef/public/readonly handling to cover enums,
> >> >  stucts, and possibly unions.
> >>
> >> This seems like the best first step.
> >>
> >> > Problems with me getting started now:
> >> >
> >> > * I don't know where I should start mucking about in the source.
> >>
> >> ...The other files to look at would be Parsing.py,..
> >
> > I've got the the Parsing pretty much working, but portions of the test
> > suite are now failing with things like
> >
> >    === Expected errors: ===
> >    1:5: function definition in pxd file must be declared 'cdef inline'
> >    4:5: inline function definition in pxd file cannot be 'public'
> >    7:5: inline function definition in pxd file cannot be 'api'
> >
> >
> >    === Got errors: ===
> >    1:5: function definition in pxd file must be declared 'cdef inline'
> >    4:12: inline function definition in pxd file cannot be 'public'
> >    7:5: inline function definition in pxd file cannot be 'api'
> >
> > while cythoning tests/errors/e_func_in_pxd_support.pxd:
> >
> >    cdef foo():
> >        return 1
> >
> >    cdef public inline foo2():
> >        return 1
> >
> >    cdef api inline foo3():
> >        return 1
> >
> > The current Cython implementation does not consider 'cdef' to be part
> > of the node code, and my current implementation does not consider any
> > qualifiers to be part of the node code.
> >
> > It's unclear to me what the "right" position is for the start of a
> > function (or variable, class, ...) should be, or how errors should be
> > formatted.  My initial impression is that Node.pos should point to the
> > beginning of the def (here 1:1, 4:1, and 7:1), but that positions of
> > the various qualifiers (cdef, public, inline, api, ...) should be
> > cached so that the error points to the offending qualifier.
> 
> For better or for worse, Cython follows the same inane declarator
> rules as C, so
> 
>     cdef int a, *b, c[5], (*d)(int)
> 
> is valid. This colors how c function declarations are expressed in the
> tree. Qualifiers don't really live in the tree and I'm not sure
> plumbing the "qualifier node" positions around would be worth the
> added complexity.

So should I go ahead and update the expected error messages in my branch?

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
The GPG signature (if present) will be attached as 'signature.asc'.
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

My public key is at http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~wking/pubkey.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/cython-devel/attachments/20110219/6312b7a4/attachment.pgp>