On 04/04/2011 03:27 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
<d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote:
* A simple and friendly solution that covers, perhaps, 80% of the cases,
based on simply replacing range with prange.
This is a "merely" aesthetic objection, while remaining agnostic on
the larger discussion, but -- 'for i in prange(...)' looks Just Wrong.
This is not a regular loop over a funny range, it's a funny loop over
a regular range. Surely it should be 'pfor i in range(...)'. Or better
yet, spell it 'parallel_for'.
I don't mind calling it "parallel_for" myself, if only a good place to
provide scheduling parameters (numthreads, dynamic vs. static
scheduling, chunksize) can be found. That would make it more obvious
that scoping rules are different too.
No sense in discussing this further until the higher-level discussion on
whether to do it or not has completed though.
Dag Sverre
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
