On May 26, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Sebastian Walter wrote: > 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.).
This is partially correct. There may be a need to have some "stub" implementation of some aspects of the Python C-API (probably at least reference counting and exception handling for now). We don't need to work all of this out initially. I think getting the separation done in the next several weeks will spawn conversations and ideas that may take several months to work out the new C-level-only API. That "interface" API is important in the short term, but also one that could change over the next several months. -Travis _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
