Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On 1/5/07, *Stefan van der Walt* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:38:49AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote: > > Several extensions to Python utilize the buffer protocol to > share > > the location of a data-buffer that is really an N-dimensional > > array. However, there is no standard way to exchange the > > additional N-dimensional array information so that the > data-buffer > > is interpreted correctly. > > > > I am questioning if this is the best concept. It says that the > data-buffer > > will carry the information about it's interpretation as an > N-dimensional > > array. > > > > I'm thinking that a buffer is just an interface to memory, and > that the > > interpretation as an array of n-dimensions, for example, is best > left to > > the application. I might want to at one time view the data as > > n-dimensional, but at another time as 1-dimensional, for example. > > You can always choose to ignore that information if you don't need it. > On the other hand, if you *do* need it, how would you otherwise > interpret an N-dimensional array, given only a buffer? > > > I think Neal is suggesting some object that basically does nothing but > hold a pointer(s) to memory. This memory can be used in various ways, > one of which is to use it construct another type of object that > provides a view with indices and such, i.e., an array. That way the > memory isn't tied to arrays and could concievable be used in other > ways. The idea is analagous to the data/model/view paradigm. It is a > bit cleaner than just ignoring the array parts.
Such an object would be useful. I would submit that it is what the buffer object "should be" But, we are talking about a different concept here --- the buffer protocol. -Travis _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
