On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com>wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Sebastian Walter wrote: > > > > > Ermm, the reply above is quite poor, sorry about that. > > What I meant to say is the following: > > > > If there is going to be a discussion about creating a pure C numpy > > library I'd like to join ;) > > Great. I would really like to get the discussion going. In an > ideal world we can finish any kind of significant re-factoring in time > for SciPy this year. It actually feels like the kind of thing that > can motivate NumPy 2.0 a bit better. > > It sounds to me like nobody will be opposed as long as there is > continuity to the project and current code still works without > disruption (i.e. the current C-API for Python extensions is available). > > I am interested in re-factoring in such a way to create minimal impact > on current NumPy C-API users, but improve maintainability going > forward and the ability for other projects to use NumPy. > > My own thoughts were to have a lowlevel 'loop' library that worked with strided memory, and an intermediate level above that for buffer objects. Numpy ufuncs would be a level above that and implement policy type things like casting, kinds, etc. Then there is the lowlevel c-library for the functions. I don't think we should aim at duplicating commonly available functions like sin and exp, but rather that subset that are sometimes unavailable. In particular, I would like to get away from having to use double versions of functions instead of type specific versions. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
