On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io>wrote:
> > The decision will not be made until NumPy 2.0 work is farther along. > The most likely outcome is that Mark will develop something quite nice in > C++ which he is already toying with, and we will either choose to use it in > NumPy to build 2.0 on --- or not. I'm interested in sponsoring Mark and > working as closely as I can with he and Chuck to see what emerges. > > > Would it be fair to say then, that you are expecting the discussion > about C++ will mainly arise after the Mark has written the code? I > can see that it will be easier to specific at that point, but there > must be a serious risk that it will be too late to seriously consider > an alternative approach. > > > We will need to see examples of what Mark is talking about and clarify > some of the compiler issues. Certainly there is some risk that once code > is written that it will be tempting to just use it. Other approaches are > certainly worth exploring in the mean-time, but C++ has some strong > arguments for it. > > > Can you say a little more about your impression of the previous Cython > > refactor and why it was not successful? > > > > Sure. This list actually deserves a long writeup about that. First, > there wasn't a "Cython-refactor" of NumPy. There was a Cython-refactor of > SciPy. I'm not sure of it's current status. I'm still very supportive > of that sort of thing. > > > I think I missed that - is it on git somewhere? > > > I thought so, but I can't find it either. We should ask Jason McCampbell > of Enthought where the code is located. Here are the distributed eggs: > http://www.enthought.com/repo/.iron/ > Refactor is with the other numpy repos here<https://github.com/numpy/numpy-refactor>. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
