On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI > changes in > >> 1.2. > > > > It does not make sense to revert those changes anymore, > > Actually, I did not follow the discussion when this change happened, > but it does not look difficult to change the code such as we do not > break the ABI. Instead of replacing the flag, we can put it at the > end, and deprecate (but not remove) the old one. > > Would anyone be strongly against that ? I have nothing against extensions when they can be made to serve. If a dictionary gets added to ndarrays I hope it is done that way, likewise for generalized ufuncs. In the present case I think Travis wants to preserve the functionality while changing the name and type, and that doesn't really fit the extension model. But I might be wrong about that. Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
