On 10/14/2012 08:18 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 13.10.2012 20:30:
On 12 October 2012 20:01, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 10/12/2012 05:50 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:14 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 12 October 2012 08:36, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 24.08.2012 20:40:
Here a pull request for element-wise array expressions for Cython:
https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/144
Mark, any news on this? I'd like to see a version merged before
the master branch starts diverging all too far - it already
requires a bit of adaptation.
Did you manage to split off a separate minivect package?
I'm assuming this has already been looked at, at least to some level,
by Dag, but I'll try to take a brief pass at it too (probably more the
interface than the implementation).
Thanks for doing that, it'd be great to get this in (but myself I've got
nothing to spare). I'll admit I was mostly focused on the generated code and
the algorithms in minivect rather than the integration with Cython.
I don't see a reason for a new pull request.
Great. As for the packaging, I'm creating a distribution branch, and a
subtree branch. Newer versions of git have a 'subtree' command
(previously https://github.com/apenwarr/git-subtree), which allows one
to split of, merge, push, and pull subdirectories.
This means when users pull the master project, they get the
sub-projects as well (without themselves needing newer git versions).
Any changes to a subproject can be merged into the subproject, ands.
changes can be pulled back in (with a squash option to avoid mixing in
the subproject's history).
What about using this approach? That way Cython remains stable and
pinned on the right minivect version now and in the future, with no
burden on users.
I still prefer having separate packages. I mean, we don't ship NumPy
either, even though a lot of people use Cython together with it.
This is a very bad comparison. NumPy is not used by Cython at all, but
by Cython-generated modules! Whereas minivect is a tool used in the
compiler itself and working on the AST level.
Plex would be a better comparison (though bad as well, since Plex is not
optional while minivect is).
Keeping the two packages separate helps in keeping the interface between
both clean. I wouldn't want to end up with Cython shipping some patched up
version of minivect just because it's so easy, and I would like to allow
users to install a new version of either Cython or minivect at any time.
I think this goal (allowing separate upgrades of Cython and/or minivect)
is unrealistic and pointless.
I think you should look at minivect as "some AST transform algorithms
which numba and Cython are able to share". It doesn't really have a life
on its own, it's just a means for Cython and numba to cooperate. (Really
long-term then hopefully NumPy, numexpr, Theano etc. would jump on too,
but that won't happen just yet. If it does, we can revisit this.)
Dag Sverre
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
