One question we are pursuing is could the arrayobject get into the core without a particular ufunc object. Most see this as sub-optimal, but maybe it is the only way.
Since all the artithmetic operations are in ufunc that would be suboptimal solution, but indeed still a workable one.
I think replacing basic number operations of the arrayobject should simple, so perhaps a default ufunc object could be worked out for inclusion.
Agreed. It is is not critical to what I am doing, and I obviously need more understanding before tackling such things. Numeric3 uses the new c-type largely because of the nice getsets table which is separate from the methods table. This replaces the rather ugly C-functions getattr and setattr.
I appreciate some of what Paul is saying here, but I'm not fully convinced that this is still true with Python 2.2 and up new-style c-types. The concerns seem to be over the fact that you have to re-implement everything in the sub-class because the base-class will always return one of its objects instead of a sub-class object.
I'd say that such discussions should be postponed until someone proposes a good use for subclassing arrays. Matrices are not one, in my opinion.
-Travis
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
