On Jun 19, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > I'm sorry, I'm pulling out of the whole thing. It just takes too much > time on the mailing list. If somebody else want to finish the CEPs and > implement it then I'd be thrilled though.
:( > I suppose my real question was "can you just trust me on developing > numerics and Cython further in this direction, I have these ideas I've > been developing as an active numerics user and Cython developer > over the > past year". I can. Many of me questions (especially about details like recounting) were as more about curiosity of how you'd make it work than questioning your strategy. I don't think something this big should just be added, but if everyone's OK with "adding a new SIMD type, with new syntax" (which I am) then I have confidence that you can work out the details to make it the most useful to you and other numerics users. There's been comparatively little debate about Kurt's project, so I'm not sure why this proposal was so much more controversial. > I suppose the answer I got was "no, we have to do it all by comittee, > and go through all the points in detail on the mailing list". > > As it is, it looks like even if we could agree on a syntax, I'd still > have to go to the mailing list for every little nick and cranny in the > semantics, checking if it could be acceptable for both numerical and > non-numerical use. I just don't have the time for that. Me either. > I think the real way forward for CEPs like these might be putting them > on hold until we can meet in person -- if we need to design by > comittee, > let's be a real comittee. Emails just take too long, with days > going by > over simple misunderstandings. (Even if writing an email doesn't > always > take long, it is really testing for my patience to spend weeks before > asking a question to seeing a resolution.) I think language design is hard, and doesn't happen overnight, but we do need to come up with a new system for deciding this kind of thing. Looking back (and into the future) here's a system that may have been more effective--at some point I should have thrown all the controversial issues on the wiki CEP page, listed the pros and cons of each, and allowed everyone to edit and expand. (Fortunately we're all mature enough here to not have edit wars.) This way the main points (just the data, not a talk page) would be listed in a succinct, non-redundant manner, at least much more so than a 50-long email thread. Then, once everyone feels that the CEP hits all relevant and important points, we should vote. Of course, this isn't a simple democracy--not everyone will vote (but we want to make a decision based on the input of those who at least care enough to hit reply rather than delete on their email client) and someone we've never heard of before doesn't have as much sway as someone who's been contributing for a long time, but hopefully consensus, or at least a clear majority, will become obvious. > The good news is that I can use what Cython time I have for better > mentoring Kurt and fix more boring bugs. And hopefully more than that. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
