Charles R Harris wrote: > On 9/10/07, *Christopher Barker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > STL either, so I'm not sure there is any downside to valarray. It looks > like neither one [vector or valarray] supports any kind of "view" > semantics, so for the > purposes of numpy array wrapping, they really aren't any different. > > I think that the originator of valarray saying it was misguided might be > considered a downside.
I had read that, though interestingly, I haven't seen any more recent commentary about the issues at all. In any case, it appears that what Budge is saying is that the original goal of valarray being well used for optimized numerical routines isn't going to happen (I don't think it has, though there is a PPC altivec version out there). However std::vector doesn't have any numerical optimizations either, so I don't see any reason to choose std::vector over std:valarray. My real question is what compiler and library writers are doing -- has anyone (OK, I guess MS and gcc are all I care about anyway) built anything optimized for them? Are they going to dump them? Who knows? -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer NOAA/OR&R/HAZMAT (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
