Pauli Virtanen wrote: > > Making structures opaque is a bit worrying. As far as I understand, so > far the API has been nearly compatible with Numeric.
I assumed that we would simply give up the Numeric compatibility - does it really matter for a NumPy which is at best out in 2011/2012 ? It is not like NumPy 1.X is going away soon in any case. OTOH, I don't used any code based numeric, so I understand it is easy to say for me :) Also, I would have hoped that some inconsistencies w.r.t. reference counting could be fixed. It is my understanding that those are mostly a consequence of how Numeric used to do things. > Making the > structures opaque is going to break both our and many other people's > code. This is a bit worrying... > > How about a less damaging route: add reserved space to critical points > in the structs, and keep appending new members only at the end? I don't think it would help much. It requires to know where changes are needed, and I don't think it is really possible. The goal would be to keep a compatible ABI throughout the whole 2.x series. Maybe it would be possible to develop some automatic conversion scripts ala 2to3, but for the C code, to make the transition. Anything related to changes from direct access to accessors should be fairly automatic. > The > Cython issue will probably be mostly resolved by new Cython releases > before the Numpy 2.0 would be out. It is already solved - I mentioned earlier that by removing datetime as a dtype (but keeping the metadata structure), and by regenerating the few cython files with Cython 0.12.1, the ABI is kept compatible (at least as far as scipy constitutes a reasonable test). cheers, David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion