On 10/5/21 8:43 pm, Sebastian Berg wrote:
But right now the proposal says this is static, and I honestly don't see much reason for it to be freeable?
I think this is the crux of the issue. The current design is for a singly-allocated struct to be passed around since it is just an aggregate of functions. If someone wants a different strategy (i.e. different alignment) they create a new policy: there are no additional parameters or data associated with the struct. I don't really see an ask from possible users for anything more, and so would prefer to remain with the simplest possible design. If the need arises in the future for additional data, which is doubtful, I am confident we can expand this as needed, and do not want to burden the current design with unneeded optional features.
It would be nice to hear from some actual users if they need the flexibility.
In any case I would like to resolve this quickly and get it into the next release, so if Eric is adamant that the advanced design is needed I will accept his proposal, since that seems easier than any of the alternatives so far.
Matti _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
