On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]>wrote:
> <snip> > As you probably saw, I think the proposal was indeed to use Cython to > provide the higher-level parts of the core, while refactoring the rest > of the C code underneath it. Obviously one could also refactor the C > into C++, so the proposal to use Cython for some of the core is to > some extent orthogonal to the choice of C / C++. I don't know the > core, perhaps there isn't much of it that would benefit from being in > Cython, I'd be interested to know your views. But, superficially, it > seems like an attractive solution to making (some of) the core easier > to maintain. > Using Cython in the binding role is orthogonal to the choice of C versus C++, you are right. This binding aspect isn't the part where C++ provides most of the benefits I envision, so increasing (or decreasing) the use of Cython within NumPy seems like a good topic for a separate thread just about Cython. Cheers, Mark > > Best, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
