On May 26, 2010, at 5:31 AM, Pauli Virtanen 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.
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...
This is correct. In our plans, the current NumPy C-API would not
change.
Clearly there will be another potential API that could be used by
other systems, but exactly what this is should be discussed and
decided upon over time. I don't think our goals for the re-factoring
depends on how this is done exactly.
-Travis
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
