Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > 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?
Or...I suppose +, +=, append are only for the array, and the non-SIMD view can only do item indexing/slicing and has no arithmetic operators at all? -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
