Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > >> Stefan Behnel wrote: >>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>>> I'll let you and Robert go on with the syntax discussion without me. >>>> >>>> However I have my doubts on whether you'll get anywhere, I >>>> maintain that >>>> this is likely a matter of taste in the end, with no objectively >>>> "right" >>>> or "wrong" decision. >>>> >>>> Are you OK with leaving the issue to popular vote? >>> You mean as in the case of decorator support for Python? ;) >>> >>> I think what this would mean is that all listening numerics people >>> would >>> go "yes, I want a short syntax as in NumPy" and everyone else >>> would go >>> "hmmm, I don't care, so I don't vote". I don't think that would >>> give us a >>> meaningfull poll result. >> You may be right in it not giving us new information, though I >> don't see >> why you can't give this premise more weight: > > Well, if there's no strong opposition to a feature but there are a > bunch of people who like it, I'd take that as an indication that it's > probably worth going in. Obviously, we are not in the "no strong > opposition" from you which is why this thread has ballooned to almost > 50 messages. > >> The people who are actually >> likely to care either way are likely to disagree with you. >> >> Anyway, I'll be really blunt. >> >> I don't see another week of discussions changing anybody's opinion >> here, >> it's already been discussed and valid points have been raised on both >> sides. Humans have been in deadlocks like this before though; common >> solutions include >> >> - Meritocracy (whoever does the feature decides) >> - Rule be the elite (lead developer majority) >> - Democracy (mailing list majority) >> >> Either way, your view about int[:,:] loose. Given this, I don't see >> why >> we have to drag on the discussion even further, unless this is *very* >> important to you. (As I said, I'd rather pull the whole thing than >> actually upset you.) > > Yes, that was blunt, but a valid point. > > OK, how about we get the feature with the less controversial syntax, > and then re-open the discussion if desired.
Assuming you mean "simd[int, (stridespecs)]" is less controversial here: My main issue with this solution is what precendence it creates for how project issues are settled. I don't like having a project culture where stamina in these long threads is what counts in the end -- I'd much rather have a clear, open voting process. But hear this: If both Robert and Stefan agrees about a syntax, whatever the conclusion is, I won't say another word. (That is, you need to get the stridespecs in, and I'll state now that I'd really, really prefer a Python-grammar-compatible syntax, unlike the alternative proposals until now. Getting SIMD in pure Python mode with the same type syntax is one of the neatest point in the whole int[:,:] syntax.) -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
