Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>
> Perhaps cleaner is not the right word. I actually believe that is far
> more portable, regarding the oddities of dlopening in different
> platforms.
I am sorry, I don't understand why a struct is less sensitive to
platform issues than function pointers when dynamically
On 5/1/08, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 16:44 -0300, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> > David, in order to put clear what I was proposing to you in previous
> > mail regarding to implementing plugin systems for numpy, please take a
> > look at the attached tarball.
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 16:44 -0300, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> David, in order to put clear what I was proposing to you in previous
> mail regarding to implementing plugin systems for numpy, please take a
> look at the attached tarball.
Thanks for looking at this Lisandro.
The problem I see with the
Sorry, I forgot to attach the code...
On 4/30/08, Lisandro Dalcin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David, in order to put clear what I was proposing to you in previous
> mail regarding to implementing plugin systems for numpy, please take a
> look at the attached tarball.
>
> The plugins are in ch
David, in order to put clear what I was proposing to you in previous
mail regarding to implementing plugin systems for numpy, please take a
look at the attached tarball.
The plugins are in charge of implementing the action of generic foo()
and bar() functions in C. The example actually implements
