Deprecate sage --cython foo.spyx

[kcrisman]

.spyx files are treated exactly the same as .pyx files in all of Sage, with one exception: sage --cython foo.spyx adds pre-processing to .spyx files. To be more compatible with other Sage commands (in particular, sage foo.spyx and load("foo.spyx")), we deprecate sage --cython foo.spyx.

There is another reason for this: sage --cython foo.spyx adds some include statements like cdefs.pxi. These .pxi files should be deprecated in Sage. Moreover, .pxi files in general are semi-deprecated anyway by upstream Cython.

CC: @robertwb @jpflori

Component: scripts

Author: Jeroen Demeyer

Branch/Commit: 6984666

Reviewer: Jean-Pierre Flori

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22698

[jdemeyer]

comment:1

For the record: .spyx files are exactly the same as .pyx files. So we could even deprecate .spyx files if it makes people think that it's something Sage-specific while it's not.

[kcrisman]

comment:2

Wait, they don't have preparsing? Then ... why "s"pyx? WTH?

[jdemeyer]

comment:3

Replying to @kcrisman:

Wait, they don't have preparsing?

No.

[kcrisman]

comment:4

Then I guess a good way to document this would be to either deprecate them (this would have to be discussed on sage-devel though, maybe ask William too if he introduced them) or to make it really clear in lots of places where one might encounter them that there is zero difference with .pyx. I'm still baffled by this ... Maybe when SageX was originally founded the idea was that .pyx would stay for old-style Pyrex files but that was abandoned, I'm just guessing. Robert Bradshaw might know more.

[jdemeyer]

comment:5

I was mostly right but not 100%: there is one difference between .spyx and .pyx files: when running a command like

$ sage --cython somefile.spyx

Sage will add some .pxi includes to the Cython sources and set some Sage-specific flags.

Within Sage itself, doing cython("somefile.spyx"), there is no difference. When executing a Cython file by running sage somefile.spyx, there is also no difference.

In my opinion, sage --cython should just run plain Cython. Related: #22805

[jdemeyer]

comment:6

Just reformulating my last comment, I can think of 3 ways to run Cython in a Sage environment:

1. Within Sage, load("foo.spyx"): compiles and executes the file

2. sage foo.spyx: compiles and executes the file

3. sage --cython foo.spyx: only runs Cython on the file

Only 3 makes a difference between .spyx and .pyx files. I suggest to deprecate this. More precisely, keep the current behaviour but deprecate sage --cython foo.spyx (but not sage --cython foo.pyx which just runs Cython).

[jdemeyer]

Author: Jeroen Demeyer

[jdemeyer]

Branch: u/jdemeyer/deprecate_sage___cython_foo_spyx

[jdemeyer]

New commits:

6984666

Deprecate sage --cython foo.spyx

[jdemeyer]

Commit: 6984666

[videlec]

comment:13

What about Sage specific %runfile and %attach?

[jdemeyer]

comment:14

Replying to @videlec:

What about Sage specific %runfile and %attach?

What do you mean; what is your question?

[videlec]

comment:15

Replying to @jdemeyer:

Replying to @videlec:

What about Sage specific %runfile and %attach?

What do you mean; what is your question?

These are two other ways of running Cython code in Sage that were not mentioned.

[jdemeyer]

comment:16

Replying to @videlec:

These are two other ways of running Cython code in Sage that were not mentioned.

Right: %runfile and %attach are essentially just wrappers around load(). So they also treat .spyx files and .pyx files the same.

[jdemeyer]

comment:17

ping

[jpflori]

Reviewer: Jean-Pierre Flori

[jpflori]

comment:18

Looks ok.

[vbraun]

Changed branch from u/jdemeyer/deprecate_sage___cython_foo_spyx to 6984666