-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.5k
BLD: should we use tempita for cython templating #13399
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
@gfyoung can you comment on your experience |
+1 from me - it's currently used in |
Quite interesting. I'm just adding new cython templates to support more sparse dtypes, and it can be much simpler using it. |
@gfyoung can u post a link to the PR where u r using this? |
Link to PR here. Key file to examine is Useful discussion points regarding Tempita in my PR start here, as there are links to other libraries that use Tempita as well. |
@jreback : yes, I remember you mentioning that in that same PR <a href=https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6938#discussion_r64143615">here. I guess not all maintainers are a fan of it though, and it did take some getting used to as well when I first attempted it. |
right they are in newer cython (though our min 0.19.1 certainly has it) |
Well different repository, different rules 😄 - |
@gfyoung yeah, though if I could use a fused type I think we should. Just easier to read/maintain. They seem to act very much like 'real' types, with a tiny exception. You need to this to avoid warnings when compiling.
|
I agree that fused types are nice, but in my experience they end up falling short. Tempita looks pretty nice, better than our ad-hoc current system. |
see here
might replace some of the manual code paths in
generate_code.py
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: