Christopher Barker wrote:
[SNIP]
> I think the PEP has far more chances of success if it's seen as a
> request from a variety of package developers, not just the numpy crowd
> (which, after all, already has numpy
This seems eminently sensible. Getting a few developers from other
projects on board would help a lot; it might also reveal some
deficiencies to the proposal that we don't see yet.
I've only given the PEP a quick read through at this point, but here a
couple of comments:
1. It seems very numpy-centric. That's not necessarily bad, but I
think it would help to have some outsiders look it over -- perhaps
they would see things that they need that it doesn't address.
Conversely, there may universal opinion that some parts of it
aren't needed, and we can strip the proposal down somewhat.
2. It seems pretty complicated. In particular, the PyDataFormatObject
seems pretty complicated. This part in particular seems like it
might be a hard sell, so I expect this is going to need
considerable more motivation. For example:
1. Why do we need Py_ARRAYOF? Can't we get the same effect just
using longer shape and strides arrays?
2. Is there any type besides Py_STRUCTURE that can have names
and fields. If so, what and what do they mean. If not, you
should just say that.
3. And on this topic, why a tuple of ([names,..], {field})? Why
not simply a list of (name, dfobject, offset, meta) for
example? And what's the meta information if it's not PyNone?
Just a string? Anything at all?
I'll try to give it a more thorough reading over the weekend.
-tim
_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion@scipy.org
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
