On 2012-02-16, at 1:28 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > I think this is a good point, which is why the idea of a long term release is > appealing. That release should be stodgy and safe, while the ongoing > development can be much more radical in making changes.
I sort of thought this *was* the state of affairs re: NumPy 2.0. > And numpy really does need a fairly radical rewrite, just to clarify and > simplify the base code easier if nothing else. New features I'm more leery > about, at least until the code base is improved, which would be my short term > priority. As someone who has now thrice ventured into the NumPy C code (twice to add features, once to fix a nasty bug I encountered) I simply could not agree more. While it's not a completely hopeless exercise for someone comfortable with C to get themselves acquainted with NumPy's C internals, the code base as is could be simpler. A refactoring and *documentation* effort would be a good way to get more people contributing to this side of NumPy. I believe the suggestion of seeing more of the C moved to Cython has also been floated before. David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
