Final decxx corrections to PR #3723 #3744
Conversation
|
Very nice. I'm not sure why Travis-CI hasn't come along and tested this yet... I'll look into that. |
|
@tacaswell: Any thoughts about why Travis-CI hasn't picked this up, and how to force it? I don't know if I've seen this happen before. |
|
@mdboom I have seen that happen before. I guess it happens because the webhook somehow doesn't reach Travis. The only way I know is to push against the branch again. The Jenkins plugin that we use for other projects has the ability to trigger on strings in the comments but Travis don't seem to allow this. |
|
There don't seem to be a good way travis-ci/travis-ci#895 |
ianthomas23
force-pushed
the
final_decxx_corrections
branch
from
6e10892 to
d271736
Compare
|
@mdboom, @jenshnielsen: I've just forced a rebase and travis seems to have started, |
|
Ok -- in any event, we have Travis passing now, and this looks good to me on reading... so merging... Nice to have PyCXX gone! |
Final decxx corrections to PR #3723
5 participants
Corrections to PR #3723, the removal of PyCXX from the _tri module. I've made the four requested changes. Using the new C++ array_view classes has improved the code, but the changes pervade all three of the C++ files making it hard to review. However, all tri tests pass, the examples produce the same output, and there are no memory leaks in either.