On Apr 5, 2010, at 12:10 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >> Yeah, but there isn't much low level stuff there and I don't want >> to toss a >> lot of real numerical code into it. > > I don't understand: there is already math code there, and you cannot > be much more low level than what's there (there is already quite a bit > of bit twiddling for long double). I split the code into complex and > real, IEEE 754 macros/funcs in another file. I don' think we need to > split into one file / function, at least not with the current size of > the library. > > I think it is much more worthwhile to think about reorganizing the > rest of numpy.core C code, the npymath library is very low hanging > fruit in comparison, if only by size.
I should have some time over the next couple of weeks, and I am very interested in refactoring the NumPy code to separate out the Python interface layer from the "library" layer as much as possible. I had some discussions with people at PyCon about making it easier for Jython, IronPython, and perhaps even other high-level languages to utilize NumPy. Is there a willingness to consider as part of this reorganization creating a clear boundary between the NumPy library code and the Python-specific interface to it? What other re-organization thoughts are you having David? -Travis _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
