On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com>wrote:
> > On May 25, 2010, at 4:49 PM, David Goldsmith wrote: > > 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. > > > This is a great idea of course and we will definitely post progess there. > > Thanks; specific URL please, when available; plus, prominently feature (a link to) the location on the Development Wiki home page, at the very least (i.e., if not also on the NumPy home page). > So far, the code has been reviewed, > I.e., the existing code, yes? > and several functions identified for re-factoring. > Please enumerate on the "Wiki Refactoring Log" (name tentative - I don't care what we call it, just so long as it exists, its purpose is clear, and we all know where it is). This is taking place in a github branch of numpy called numpy refactor. > "This" = the actual creation/modification of code, yes? DG > > -Travis > > > 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 > > > --- > Travis Oliphant > Enthought, Inc. > oliph...@enthought.com > 1-512-536-1057 > http://www.enthought.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
