On Aug 11, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > 2008/8/9 Dag Sverre Seljebotn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> My initial reaction is that I like it! However it might not be >> needed... >> >> It would have to be (:n, :) rather than (n, :) for consistency. >> >> The thing is, you don't really need the shape in the syntax >> currently, only ndim. (One can use an assert statement if one >> wants the check, there doesn't appear to be any advantages to >> knowing the shape compile-time, unless perhaps if it is very small.) >> >> however with this perhaps support for specifying a starting point >> (index start point, subtracted on all lookups) could be added, >> that would be potentially very useful but also tend to "add >> cruft"...add something that is not there in either Python or C... > >> Time and users will have to tell! But I enjoyed such a fresh idea >> in this discussion. > > Well, I believe that people with some background in Fortran 90 will > definitely like and support my proposal. > >> I think one could make the ndim keyword mandatory at first, to >> delay the decision about which positional argument should be 2nd. > > Well, I believe that is a good approach. IMHO, declaring > > cdef ndarray[int, 3] tmp > > is not really clear that '3' means a 3D array. The intention of my > proposal is just to provide a syntax that is less ambiguous and have > room for more facilities (shape checking, negative starts, require > shape at least xD, etc.)
Your syntax is certainly more flexible. Given what we support, ndarray [int, (:,:,:)] is a rather obscure way to declare a 3-dim array, but if we add more features in the future this seems backwards compatible with what we have now. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
