On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We'll see how much interest there is. If it becomes official you may get > more feedback on features. There are some advantages to having some user > types in numpy. One is that otherwise they tend to get lost, another is that > having a working example or two provides a templates for others to work > from, and finally they provide test material. Because official user types > aren't assigned anywhere there might also be some conflicts. Maybe something > like an extension types module would be a way around that. In any case, I > think both rational numbers and quaternions would be useful to have and I > hope there is some discussion of how to do that. I agree that those will be useful, but I am worried about adding more stuff in multiarray. User-types should really be separated from multiarray. Ideally, they should be plugins but separated from multiarray would be a good first step. I realize it is a bit unfair to have this ready for Geoffray's code changes, but depending on the timelines for the 2.0.0 milestone, I think this would be a useful thing to have. Otherwise, if some ABI/API changes are needed after 2.0, we will be dragged down with this for years. I am willing to spend time on this. Geoffray, does this sound acceptable to you ? David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
