On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba so that
SciPy functions can call it, e.g. (I'm making the numba part up):
@numba # Compiles function using
On 04/13/2012 01:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba
On 04/13/2012 07:24 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 13.04.2012 00:34:
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba so that
SciPy functions
On 04/13/2012 01:38 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Robert Bradshaw, 13.04.2012 12:17:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2012 01:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
Have you given any thought as to what happens if __call__ is
re-assigned for an object (or subclass of an
On 04/13/2012 03:01 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 13 April 2012 13:48, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Stefan Behnel, 13.04.2012 14:27:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 13.04.2012 13:59:
Requiring interning is somewhat less elegant in one way, but it makes a lot
of other stuff much simpler.
That gives us
struct
4:59 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 01:38 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> Robert Bradshaw, 13.04.2012 12:17:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04/13/2012 01:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw wr
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> Ah, I didn't think about 6-bit or huffman. Certainly helps.
>
>Yeah, we don't want to complicate the ABI too much, but I think
>something like 8 4-bit common chars and 32 6
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> Ah, I didn't think about 6-bit or huffman. Certainly helps.
>>>
>>> I'm almost +1 on your
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
>
>Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith
>wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ah, I didn't think about 6-bit or huffman. C
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith
>wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Dag Sverre Selje
Greg Ewing wrote:
>Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
>> 1) It doesn't work well with multiple interpreter states. Ok, nothing
>works
>> with that at the moment, but it is on the roadmap for Python
>
>Is it really? I got the impression that it's not conside
On 04/14/2012 12:46 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 12 April 2012 22:00, Wes McKinney wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
Yet another release candidate, this will hopefully be the last before
the 0.16 release. You can grab it from here:
http://wiki.cython.org/ReleaseN
On 04/14/2012 08:10 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 14.04.2012 10:41:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
1) It doesn't work well with multiple interpreter states. Ok, nothing
works with that at the m
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba so that
SciPy functions can call it, e.g. (I'm making the numba part up):
This thread is turning into o
Stefan Behnel wrote:
>mark florisson, 14.04.2012 23:00:
>> On 14 April 2012 20:08, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>> * TBD: Information about GIL requirements (nogil, with gil?), how
>>> exceptions are reported
>>
>> Maybe that could be a separate list,
On 04/15/2012 08:16 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Robert Bradshaw, 15.04.2012 07:59:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM, mark florisson wrote:
There may be a lot of promotion/demotion (you likely only want the
former) combinations, especially for multiple arguments, so perhaps it
makes sense to limit o
Ah, Cython objects. Didn't think of that. More below.
On 04/14/2012 11:02 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,
thanks for writing this up. Comments inline as I read through it.
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 14.04.2012 21:08:
each described by a function pointer and a signature specification
string, su
On 04/15/2012 09:30 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 15.04.2012 08:58:
Ah, Cython objects. Didn't think of that. More below.
On 04/14/2012 11:02 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
thanks for writing this up. Comments inline as I read through it.
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 14.04.2012
On 04/15/2012 09:39 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Ah, Cython objects. Didn't think of that. More below.
On 04/14/2012 11:02 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,
thanks for writing this up. Comments inline as I read through it.
On 04/15/2012 10:07 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/15/2012 09:30 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 15.04.2012 08:58:
Ah, Cython objects. Didn't think of that. More below.
On 04/14/2012 11:02 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
thanks for writing this up. Comments inline as I
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> Do you really think it complicates the spec? SHA-1 is pretty
>standard, and
>> Python ships with hashlib (the hashing part isn't performance
>critical).
>>
>> I
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 04/15/2012 09:30 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 15.04.2012 08:58:
>>>>
>>>> Ah, Cython objects. Didn't think of that.
On 04/15/2012 10:48 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Do you really think it complicates the spec? SHA-1 is pretty standard, and
Python ships with hashlib (the hashing part isn't performance critical).
I prefer hashing to string-inte
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba so
that SciPy functions can call it, e.g. (I'm making the numba part
up):
@numba # Compiles function using
On 04/17/2012 02:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba so
that SciPy functions can call it, e.g. (I'm makin
On 04/17/2012 02:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/17/2012 02:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba so
On 04/17/2012 02:40 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
I don't believe doing interning right without a common dependency .so is all
that easy. I'd love to see a concrete spec for it (e.g., if you use Python
bytes in a dict in s
On 04/17/2012 03:16 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 17.04.2012 14:53:
Is bytes a vararg object or does it wrap a char*?
The data is stored internally in all CPython versions. Note that access to
it may not be efficient in other Python implementations, but at least PyPy
would
On 04/17/2012 04:20 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
OK, here's the benchmark code I've written:
https://github.com/dagss/cep1000
This is great!
Assumptions etc.:
- (Very) warm cache case is tested
- I compil
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 04/17/2012 04:20 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> Since you've set this up... I have a suggestion for something that
>may
>>> be worth trying, though I've hesi
On 04/17/2012 02:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba so
that SciPy functions can call it, e.g. (I'm makin
On 04/18/2012 11:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/17/2012 02:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant recently raised the issue on the NumPy list of what
mechanisms to use to box native functions produced by his Numba so
On 04/19/2012 08:41 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 18.04.2012 23:35:
from numpy import sqrt, sin
cdef double f(double x):
return sqrt(x * x) # or sin(x * x)
Of course, here one could get the pointer in the module at import time.
That optimisation would actually be very
On 04/19/2012 10:35 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2012/4/19 Dag Sverre Seljebotn:
On 04/19/2012 08:41 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 18.04.2012 23:35:
from numpy import sqrt, sin
cdef double f(double x):
return sqrt(x * x) # or sin(x * x)
Of course, here one could get the
On 04/19/2012 11:07 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 04/18/2012 11:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/17/2012 02:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Travis Oliphant
On 04/19/2012 12:56 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/19/2012 11:07 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 04/18/2012 11:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/17/2012 02:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2012 12:11 AM
On 04/19/2012 01:11 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 19.04.2012 13:05:
Pure speculation though
I think we should leave speculation to the CPUs. They are quite good at it
these days.
Yes, I agree, given these benchmarks, we should focus on
a) Usability in C
b) Simplicity
c
On 04/19/2012 01:20 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
I thought of some drawbacks of getfuncptr:
- Important: Doesn't allow you to actually inspect the supported
signatures, which is needed (or at least convenient) if you want t
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 04/19/2012 01:20 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> @cython.inline
>>> def square(x):
>>> return x * x
>>>
>>> # .specialize is an un-stand
On 04/20/2012 08:21 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Robert Bradshaw, 20.04.2012 02:52:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:53 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 19 April 2012 08:17, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/19/2012 08:41 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 18.04.2012 23:35:
from numpy import
On 04/20/2012 08:49 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/20/2012 08:21 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Robert Bradshaw, 20.04.2012 02:52:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:53 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 19 April 2012 08:17, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/19/2012 08:41 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag
Just heard about the Julia language and wanted to make sure it's on
everybody's radar:
http://julialang.org
It's the first really decent language designed for scientists. Seems
impressive to me, there's a few Cython features:
- Dynamic typing with optional static types
- Call C directly
A
On 04/21/2012 07:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Just heard about the Julia language and wanted to make sure it's on
everybody's radar:
http://julialang.org
It's the first really decent language designed for scientists. Seems
...that I've heard of, that is.
Da
On 04/23/2012 08:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Dimitri Tcaciuc wrote:
I may be misuderstanding the intent here, but here it goes.
If the main idea is to be able to call functions that are written in
Julia or other languages, I think an effort to create an LLVM
On 04/24/2012 12:32 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
I'm excited about Julia because it's basically what I'd *like* to
program in. My current mode of development for much stuff is Jinja2 or
Tempita used for generating C code; Julia would be a real step forw
Stefan Behnel wrote:
>Wes McKinney, 29.04.2012 03:14:
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>> On 28 April 2012 22:04, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Was chatting with Wes today about the usual problem many of us have
encountered with needing to use some sort of templatin
On 04/30/2012 06:30 PM, Wes McKinney wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
On 30 April 2012 14:49, Wes McKinney wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:56 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
On 29 April 2012 08:42, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM, mark fl
Wes McKinney wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> JIT is really the way to go. It is one thing that a JIT could
>optimize the
>>> case where you pass a call
On 04/30/2012 11:36 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Wes McKinney wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
JIT is really the way to go. It is one
On 05/01/2012 10:29 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/30/2012 11:36 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Wes McKinney wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
o the "+1" stage (or, depending on how things turn out, a
tournament starting with at most one proposal per person).
On 04/20/2012 09:30 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 04/19/2012 01:20 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu,
On 05/05/2012 01:08 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 3 May 2012 13:24, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
I'm afraid I'm going to try to kick this thread alive again. I want us to
have something that Travis can implement in numba and "his" portion of
SciPy, and also that could b
On 05/06/2012 04:28 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
I think we already have quite a bit of functionality (nearly) ready,
after merging some pending pull requests maybe it will be a good time
for a 0.17 release? I think it would be good to also document to what
extent pypy support works, what work
[moving to dev list]
On 05/07/2012 11:17 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 10:44:
On 05/07/2012 07:48 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
shaunc, 07.05.2012 07:13:
The following code:
cdef int foo( double[:] bar ) nogil:
return bar is None
causes: "Converting to P
On 05/07/2012 01:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 12:40:
moving to dev list
Makes sense.
On 05/07/2012 11:17 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 10:44:
On 05/07/2012 07:48 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
I wonder why a memory view should be
On 05/07/2012 01:48 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/07/2012 01:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 12:40:
moving to dev list
Makes sense.
On 05/07/2012 11:17 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 10:44:
On 05/07/2012 07:48 AM, Stefan
On 05/07/2012 03:04 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 13:48:
Here you go:
def foo(np.ndarray[double] a, np.ndarray[double] out=None):
if out is None:
out = np.empty_like(a)
Ah, right - output arguments. Hadn't thought of those.
Still, since you
On 05/07/2012 04:16 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Stefan Behnel, 07.05.2012 15:04:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 13:48:
BTW, with the coming of memoryviews, me and Mark talked about just
deprecating the "mytype[...]" meaning buffers, and rather treat it as
np.ndarray, array.array etc.
On 05/07/2012 06:00 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/07/2012 04:16 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Stefan Behnel, 07.05.2012 15:04:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 13:48:
BTW, with the coming of memoryviews, me and Mark talked about just
deprecating the "mytype[...]" meaning bu
On 05/07/2012 06:04 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 12:10, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 12:40:
moving to dev list
Makes sense.
On 05/07/2012 11:17 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 10:44:
On 05/07/2012 07:48 AM, Stefan Behnel
On 05/07/2012 06:18 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 17:16, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 17:12, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 18:07:
On 05/07/2012 06:04 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 12:10, Stefan Behnel wrote:
BTW, is there a reason why we
On 05/07/2012 07:00 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 07.05.2012 18:28:
On 7 May 2012 17:00, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/07/2012 04:16 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Stefan Behnel, 07.05.2012 15:04:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 13:48:
BTW, with the coming of memoryviews, me and
mark florisson wrote:
>On 7 May 2012 17:00, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>wrote:
>> On 05/07/2012 04:16 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> Stefan Behnel, 07.05.2012 15:04:
>>>>
>>>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 13:48:
>>>>>
>
On 05/07/2012 11:21 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 19:40, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 17:00, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/07/2012 04:16 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Stefan Behnel, 07.05.2012 15:04:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 07.05.2012 13:48
On 05/08/2012 10:18 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 08.05.2012 09:57:
On 05/07/2012 11:21 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 19:40, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 17:00, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/07/2012 04:16 PM, Stefan Behnel
On 05/08/2012 10:18 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 08.05.2012 09:57:
On 05/07/2012 11:21 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 19:40, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 17:00, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/07/2012 04:16 PM, Stefan Behnel
On 05/08/2012 11:22 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 8 May 2012 09:36, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/08/2012 10:18 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 08.05.2012 09:57:
On 05/07/2012 11:21 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May 2012 19:40, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
mark
On 05/08/2012 11:30 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/08/2012 11:22 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 8 May 2012 09:36, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/08/2012 10:18 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 08.05.2012 09:57:
On 05/07/2012 11:21 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 7 May
Vitja Makarov wrote:
>2012/5/8 Stefan Behnel :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Vitja has rebased the type inference on the control flow, so I wonder
>if
>> this will enable us to properly infer this:
>>
>> def partial_validity():
>> """
>> >>> partial_validity()
>> ('Python object', 'double', 'str objec
On 05/09/2012 05:13 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 08.05.2012 18:52:
Vitja Makarov wrote:
def partial_validity():
"""
>>> partial_validity()
('str object', 'double', 'str object')
"""
a_1
On 05/09/2012 09:08 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 9 May 2012 19:56, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:35 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
On 8 May 2012 10:47, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
After some thinking I believe I can see more clearly where Mark is coming
from. To sum up, it&#
This comes from a refactor of the work on CEP 1000: A PEP proposal, with
a hack for use in current Python versions and in the case of PEP
rejection, that allows 3rd party libraries to agree on extensions to
PyTypeObject.
http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/cep1001
If this makes it as a PEP, I
On 05/12/2012 08:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
This comes from a refactor of the work on CEP 1000: A PEP proposal, with a
hack for use in current Python versions and in the case of PEP rejection,
that allows 3rd party libraries to
On 05/13/2012 09:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/12/2012 08:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
This comes from a refactor of the work on CEP 1000: A PEP proposal,
with a
hack for use in current Python versions and in the case of
On 05/14/2012 01:34 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 13.05.2012 21:37:
Anyway, thanks for the heads up, this seems to need a bit more work. Input
from somebody more familiar with this corner of the CPython API very welcome.
Wouldn't you consider python-dev an appropriate
On 05/14/2012 08:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/14/2012 01:34 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 13.05.2012 21:37:
Anyway, thanks for the heads up, this
On Wed, 16 May 2012 20:49:18 +0100, mark florisson
wrote:
On 16 May 2012 20:15, Stefan Behnel wrote:
"Martin v. Löwis", 16.05.2012 20:33:
Does this use case make sense to everyone?
The reason why we are discussing this on python-dev is that we are
looking
for a general way to expose these C
Stefan Behnel wrote:
>mark florisson, 16.05.2012 21:49:
>> On 16 May 2012 20:15, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> "Martin v. Löwis", 16.05.2012 20:33:
> Does this use case make sense to everyone?
>
> The reason why we are discussing this on python-dev is that we are
>looking
> for a ge
I don't know where to put this so I put it up top:
I think this talk about implementing caching went a bit overboard
myself. Here's a performance ladder for you:
Alternative A) Focus on fast lookup; go from 100 ns function call to 5
ns function call
Alternative B) Focus on caching a 20 ns l
On 05/18/2012 12:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I think the main things we'd be looking for would be:
- a clear explanation of why a new metaclass is considered too complex a
solution
- what the implications are for classes that have nothing to do with the
SciPy/NumPy ecosystem
- how subclassing woul
On 05/20/2012 04:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
For my gsoc we already have some simple initial ideas, i.e.
elementwise vector expressions (a + b with a and b arrays with
arbitrary rank), I don't think these need any discussion. However,
there are a lot of things that haven't been formally di
On 05/21/2012 12:56 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 21 May 2012 11:34, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/20/2012 04:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
For my gsoc we already have some simple initial ideas, i.e.
elementwise vector expressions (a + b with a and b arrays with
arbitrary rank), I
On 05/22/2012 08:11 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/20/2012 04:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
For my gsoc we already have some simple initial ideas, i.e.
elementwise vector expressions (a + b with a and b arrays with
On 05/22/2012 08:48 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/22/2012 08:11 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/20/2012 04:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
For my gsoc
On 05/22/2012 08:57 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/22/2012 08:48 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/22/2012 08:11 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/20/2012 04:03
On 05/22/2012 09:06 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/22/2012 08:48 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/22/2012 08:11 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, May 21
On 05/18/2012 10:30 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/18/2012 12:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I think the main things we'd be looking for would be:
- a clear explanation of why a new metaclass is considered too complex a
solution
- what the implications are for classes that have nothing
, mark florisson
wrote:
On 28 May 2012 09:54, mark florisson wrote:
On 27 May 2012 23:12, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/18/2012 10:30 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/18/2012 12:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I think the main
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>On 05/28/2012 01:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 28 May 2012 12:01, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM, mark florisson
>
mfo...@googlegroups.com
On May 28, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/28/2012 05:55 PM, David wrote:
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 3:05:06 AM UTC+9, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
That Other Thread contained some references to CI. So I'm mainly
wondering what the current
[Discussion on numfo...@googlegroups.com please]
I've uploaded a draft-state SEP 201 (previously CEP 1000):
https://github.com/numfocus/sep/blob/master/sep201.rst
"""
Many callable objects are simply wrappers around native code. This holds
for any Cython function, f2py functions, manually writ
On 05/28/2012 05:59 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/28/2012 01:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
On 28 May 2012 12:01, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM, mark florisson
On 05/31/2012 08:50 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
[Discussion on numfo...@googlegroups.com please]
I've uploaded a draft-state SEP 201 (previously CEP 1000):
https://github.com/numfocus/sep/blob/master/sep201.rst
""
Forgot to CC this list...
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Cython] SEP 201 draft: Native callable objects
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:06:02 +0200
From: Dag Sverre Seljebotn
Reply-To: numfo...@googlegroups.com
To: numfo...@googlegroups.com
On 05/31/2012 09:29 PM, Dag Sverre
On 05/31/2012 10:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/31/2012 08:50 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
[Discussion on numfo...@googlegroups.com please]
I've uploa
On 06/01/2012 03:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/31/2012 10:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/31/2012 08:50 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
[Discussion on
Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
already, but I figured it was better to continue it and provide more
in-depth benchmark results here.
It's basically a new idea of how to provide a vtable based on perfect
hashing, which should be a lot simpler to implement than
On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
already, but I figured it was better to continue it and provide more
in-depth benchmark results here.
It's basically a new idea of how to provide a vtable based on pe
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>
>>> Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
>>> already, but I figured it was
On 06/05/2012 11:16 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.06.2012 00:07:
The C FAQ says 'if you know the contents of your hash table up front you can
devise a perfect hash', but no details, probably just hand-wa
201 - 300 of 369 matches
Mail list logo
