[pythran] Re: What are you implementing?
- From: serge Guelton <serge.guelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pythran@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:51:55 +0100
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:34:45AM +0100, Pierrick Brunet wrote:
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> > De: "serge Guelton" <serge.guelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > À: pythran@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Envoyé: Vendredi 22 Novembre 2013 10:12:16
> > Objet: [pythran] Re: What are you implementing?
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:34:23PM +0100, Pierrick Brunet wrote:
> > > Pierrick : Nothing for now :-) I was on Import and now I will :
> > > pass new benchmark and/or remove useless stmt pass
> >
> > Pass new benchmarks (the one I sent on the mliste during SC) seems
> > more
> > important to me. You also have to polish (and benchmark!) your lazy
> > branch ;-)
> >
> > > About remove useless stmt pass, it is mainly function and import.
> > > - Import because it may avoid a crash if user import a module we
> > > don't know but which is not use.
> > > - Function because useless function may use unknown module and
> > > cause crash. It may happen more often with imported module.
> >
> > Both are False, because you cannot decide if the import function is
> > useless if you don't know it (e;g. it can print something on the
> > screen)
>
> #pythran export foo()
>
> import baba
>
> def bar():
> baba.lala()
>
> def foo():
> print a
>
>
> I am sure in this case that import baba is useless AND bar function too.
Only because of the export. But export are not taken into account at
compilation time (we would loose all the meta-programming beauty).
Remember one can translate a .py into .cpp to be used from another
.cpp...
Other related posts:
