Travis: do you already have a place on the NumPy Development Wiki<http://wiki.numpy.org/>where you're (b)logging your design decisions? Seems like a good way for concerned parties to monitor your choices in more or less real time and thus provide comment in a timely fashion.
DG On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Travis Oliphant > <oliph...@enthought.com>wrote: > >> >> On May 25, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Travis Oliphant >> <oliph...@enthought.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> There has been some talk about re-factoring NumPy to separate out the >>> Python C-API layer and make NumPy closer to a C-library. I know >>> there are a few different ideas about what this means, and also that >>> people are very busy. I also know there is a NumPy 2.0 release that >>> is in the works. >>> >>> I'm excited to let everyone know that we (at Enthought) have been able >>> to find resources (about 3 man months) to work on this re-factoring >>> project and Scott and Jason (both very experienced C and Python >>> programmers) are actively pursuing it. My hope is that NumPy 2.0 >>> will contain this re-factoring (which should be finished just after >>> SciPy 2010 --- where I'm going to organize a Sprint on NumPy which >>> will include at least date-time improvements and re-factoring work). >>> >>> While we have specific goals for the re-factoring, we want this >>> activity to be fully integrated with the NumPy community and Scott and >>> Jason want to interact with the community as much as feasible as they >>> suggest re-factoring changes (though they both have more experience >>> with phone-conversations to resolve concerns than email chains and so >>> some patience from everybody will be appreciated). >>> >>> Because Jason and Scott are new to this mailing list (but not new to >>> NumPy), I wanted to introduce them so they would feel more >>> comfortable posting questions and people would have some context as to >>> what they were trying to do. >>> >>> Scott and Jason are both very proficient and skilled programmers and I >>> have full confidence in their abilities. That said, we very much >>> want the input of as many people as possible as we pursue the goal of >>> grouping together more tightly the Python C-API interface layer to >>> NumPy. >>> >>> I will be involved in some of the discussions, but am currently on a >>> different project which has tight schedules and so I will only be able >>> to provide limited "mailing-list" visibility. >>> >>> >> I think 2.0 would be a bit early for this. Is there any reason it couldn't >> be done in 2.1? What is the planned policy with regards to the visible >> interface for extensions? It would also be nice to have a rough idea of how >> the resulting code would be layered, i.e., what is the design for this >> re-factoring. Simply having a design would be a major step forward. >> >> >> The problem with doing it in 2.1 is that this re-factoring will require >> extensions to be re-built. The visible interface to extensions will not >> change, but there will likely be ABI incompatibility. It seems prudent to >> do this in NumPy 2.0. Perhaps we can also put in place the ABI-protecting >> indirection approaches that David C. was suggesting earlier. >> >> Some aspects of the design are still being fleshed out, but the basic idea >> is to separate out a core library that is as independent of the Python C-API >> as possible. There will likely be at least some dependency on the Python >> C-API (reference counting and error handling and possibly others) which any >> interface would have to provide in a very simple Python.h -- equivalent, for >> example. >> >> Our purpose is to allow NumPy to be integrated with other languages or >> other frameworks systems without explicitly relying on CPython. There are >> a lot of questions as to how this will work, and so much of that is being >> worked out. Part of the reason for this mail is to help ensure that as >> much of this discussion as possible takes place in public. >> >> > Sounds good, but what if it doesn't get finished in a few months? I think > we should get 2.0.0 out pronto, ideally it would already have been released. > I think a major refactoring like this proposal should get the 3.0.0 label. > Admittedly that makes keeping a refactored branch current with fixes going > into the trunk a hassle, but perhaps that can be worked around somewhat by > clearly labeling what files will be touched in the refactoring and possibly > rearranging the content of the existing files. This requires a game plan and > a clear idea of the goal. Put simply, I think the proposed schedule is too > ambitious and needs to be fleshed out. This refactoring isn't going to be > as straight forward as the python3k port because a lot of design decisions > need to be made along the way. > > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > -- Mathematician: noun, someone who disavows certainty when their uncertainty set is non-empty, even if that set has measure zero. Hope: noun, that delusive spirit which escaped Pandora's jar and, with her lies, prevents mankind from committing a general suicide. (As interpreted by Robert Graves)
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
