On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: > Wed, 26 May 2010 10:50:19 +0200, Sebastian Walter wrote: >> I'm a potential user of the C-API and therefore I'm very interested in >> the outcome. >> In the previous discussion >> (http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/37409) many >> different views on what the new C-API "should" be were expressed. > > I believe the aim of the refactor is to *not* change the C-API at all, > but separate it internally from the routines that do the heavy lifting. > Externally, Numpy would still look the same, but be more easy to maintain.
Sorry for the confusion. By C-API I meant a C-API that would be independent of the CPython API. > > The routines that do the heavy lifting could then be good for reuse and > be more easy to maintain, but I think how and where they would be exposed > hasn't been discussed so far... I had the impression that the goal is not only to have code that is easier to maintain but to give developers the possibility to use numpy functionality (broadcasting, ufuncs, ...) within C code without having to use CPython API (refcounts, construction of PyObjects etc.). > > -- > Pauli Virtanen > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
