On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 2:00 AM Hans Dembinski <hans.dembin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sylvain, > > On 16. Aug 2018, at 13:29, Sylvain Corlay <sylvain.cor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Actually, xtensor-python does a lot more in terms of numpy bindings, as it > uses the C APIs of numpy directly for a number of things. > > Plus, the integration into the xtensor expression system lets you do > things such as view / broadcasting / newaxis / ufuncs directly from the C++ > side (and all that is in the cheat sheets). > > ok, good, but my point was different. The page in question is about Python > as a glue language. The other solutions on that site are general purpose > binding solutions for any kind of C++ code, while xtensor-python is > xtensor-specific. xtensor in turn is a library that mimics the numpy API in > C++. > Even if you don't use the numpy-mimicking parts of the xtensor API, xtensor-python is a probably a net improvement over pybind11 for communicating arrays back and forth across the C++/Python boundary. Even if the rest of your C++ code doesn't use xtensor, you could profitably use xtensor-python at the interface. Also, though the article is generally framed as using Python as a glue language (i.e. communicating with existing C/C++/Fortran code), it is also relevant for the use case where you are writing the C/C++/Fortran code from scratch (perhaps just accelerating small kernels or whatever). Talking about the available options for that use case is perfectly on-topic for that article. You don't have to be the one that writes it, though, if you just want to cover pybind11. -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
