Stefan Behnel wrote: > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> On Jun 19, 2009, at 12:28 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>> Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>>> On Jun 18, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>>>> Having the same syntax >>>>> for memory views and SIMD views sounds like an awful lot of things >>>>> and a very unnecessary addition, since the same can be achieved >>>>> using >>>>> the normal type instantiation syntax and type specialisation on the >>>>> SIMD/memory-view *type* (note the difference to using that syntax on >>>>> just *any* type). The [] syntax makes a lot of sense for the new >>>>> array type, it makes mostly sense for buffers, it was accepted >>>>> (IIRC) for type specialisation. IMHO, that's a long enough distance >>>>> that we go down that road. Going further would make the language >>>>> less parseable to humans. >>>> IIRC part of the motivation for int[:,:] syntax rather than >>>> special_name[int, ndim=2] was that the former is actually easier for >>>> humans to parse. Personally, it seems a natural extension of the int >>>> [50] syntax. >>> It behaves very different, though. For one, it's not a memory >>> allocated data object but a *view* on such a thing, just like the >>> typed memory view. >>> What syntax would you propose for the memory view, and if none, why >>> not? >> The proposal is to give our memory view types SIMD semantics > > That's where we disagree. I think there should be three types with > different behaviour: a dynamic array type that allocates memory and two > different view types with different (arithmetic etc.) behavior. I defined > all three of them in an earlier post.
Just for clarification (I looked up your earlier post but didn't find it): Would the non-SIMD view type (your 2)) support more than one dimension? How would +, +=, append semantics be defined if there's more than one dimension? -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
