On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 12:56 PM Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, at 21:30, Robert Kern wrote: > > Given the prevalence of Cython, it's actually really easy to use the > Python API pretty easily in "C", so it's actually a huge waste if the C API > matches the Python API too closely. The power and utility of the C API will > be in how it *differs* from the Python API. For the distribution methods, > this is largely in how it lets you sample one number at a time without > bothering with the numpy and broadcasting overhead. That's the driving > motivation for having a C API for the distributions, and the algorithms > that we choose have consequences for the C API that will best satisfy that > motivation. > > > I'd like to clarify what exactly we mean by exposing a C API. Do we have > in mind that our random number generators can be used from standalone C > code, or via Cython `cimport` like with the current numpy.pxd? > Cython is the priority. Numba and cffi/ctypes are also desired and relatively easy to do with capsules. Pure C (via #include) is desired, but can be added later because doing that is more annoying. It sounds like we want to expose the highest level generators; do we also > want to provide access to the bit streams? > 100%
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
