Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know if this constitutes "major opposition", but is keeping > the same C-API for NumPy 1.2 unchanged still a possibility? Please? Sorry I haven't commented on this yet; I have been busy and am still thinking about the iss

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

Andrew Straw wrote: > Robert Kern wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Travis, Stéfan, >>> >>> I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force >>> all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that >>> all

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >If you could figure out how to add a new flags field > without affecting the old one or requiring existion applications to be > recompiled, that would be good. Adding a member to a struct does not break ABI as long as

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

David Cournapeau wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in >>> 1.2. >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

> David Cournapeau wrote: >> Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time >> during the 1.* cycle ? > Jon Wright wrote: > Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for > this change? If it only means everyone recompiles, it is hard to see > what we, a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I have nothing against extensions when they can be made to serve. If a > dictionary gets added to ndarrays I hope it is done that way, likewise for > generalized ufuncs. But that's a totally different matter. You

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

2008/8/17 Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have nothing against extensions when they can be made to serve. If a > dictionary gets added to ndarrays I hope it is done that way, likewise for > generalized ufuncs. In the present case I think Travis wants to preserve the > functionality while

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in >> 1.2. > > It does not make sense to revert those chang

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in > 1.2. It does not make sense to revert those changes anymore, but we keep having those discussions, and I still don't understand whether t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Try to look 12 months into the future and ask yourselves if it was > really a good idea to break the ABI. > I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in 1.2. And maybe not in 1.3 either,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

Robert Kern wrote: > > FWIW, neither PIL nor PyOpenGL have C code which uses numpy arrays, so > they are entirely unaffected. OK, so here are some projects which might notice a 1.2 installation, in as much as they turn up on a google code search for: #include "numpy/arrayobject.h" -scipy -enth

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Cournapeau wrote: >> Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time >> during the 1.* cycle ? > > > Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for > this change? If it only me

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Charles R Harris > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Turns out that ipython needs to be recompiled also because of the newly > > added version checking. > > I'm sorry, can you clarify this?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Turns out that ipython needs to be recompiled also because of the newly > added version checking. I'm sorry, can you clarify this? ipython has no C code at all, so I'm not sure what you mean here. Cheers, f ___

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Charles R Harris < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Charles R Harris < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> David Cournapeau wrote: >>> > Does that me

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Charles R Harris < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> David Cournapeau wrote: >> > Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time >> > during the 1.* cycle ? >> >> >> Can

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Cournapeau wrote: > > Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time > > during the 1.* cycle ? > > > Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for > this change? If it only

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

David Cournapeau wrote: > Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time > during the 1.* cycle ? Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for this change? If it only means everyone recompiles, it is hard to see what we, as users, are gaining by doi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Re-compilation is necessary at some point. We have not required > recompilation for a long time now.Yes, it is a pain for > distribution, but those who don't want to re-compile can point people to > 1.1.1 which

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

Jon Wright wrote: > Travis, Stéfan, > > I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force > all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? Re-compilation is necessary at some point. We have not required recompilation for a long time now.Yes, it is a pain for distr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Travis, Stéfan, > > > > I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force > > all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

Robert Kern wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Travis, Stéfan, >> >> I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force >> all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that >> all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis, Stéfan, > > I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force > all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that > all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/etc users are going to have to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

Travis, Stéfan, I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/etc users are going to have to make a co-ordinated upgrade, then this seems to be a grave mistake. Does S

Re: [Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The 1.2 version of NumPy is going to be tagged. There is at least one > change I'd like to add: The hasobject member of the PyArray_Descr > structure should be renamed to "flags" and converted to a 32-bit > integer.

[Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

Hi all, The 1.2 version of NumPy is going to be tagged. There is at least one change I'd like to add: The hasobject member of the PyArray_Descr structure should be renamed to "flags" and converted to a 32-bit integer. What does everybody think about this change? It should have minimal