Hello all, Thank you to those who commented on this PR and for pushing it to a *much better place* in terms of templating with Tempita. With that issue out of the way it seems, the momentum has stalled a bit. However, it would be great to receive any additional feedback, *especially from maintainers* so as to help get this merged! Thanks!
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, G Young <gfyoun...@gmail.com> wrote: > There seems to be a push in my PR now for using Tempita as a way to solve > this issue with the ad-hoc templating. However, before I go about > attempting this, it would be great to receive feedback from other > developers on this, especially from some of the numpy maintainers. Thanks! > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:04 AM, G Young <gfyoun...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just wanted to ping the mailing list again in case this email (see below) >> got lost in your inboxes. Would be great to get some feedback on this! >> Thanks! >> >> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 2:15 AM, G Young <gfyoun...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have had a PR <https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6938> open for >>> quite some time now that allows arguments to broadcast in *randint*. >>> While the functionality is fully in-place and very robust, the obstacle at >>> this point is the implementation. >>> >>> When the *dtype* parameter was added to *randint* (see here >>> <https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6910>), a big issue with the >>> implementation was that it created so much duplicate code that it would be >>> a huge maintenance nightmare. However, this was dismissed in the original >>> PR message because it was believed that template-ing would be trivial, >>> which seemed reasonable at the time. >>> >>> When I added broadcasting, I introduced a template system to the code >>> that dramatically cut down on the duplication. However, the obstacle has >>> been whether or not this template system is too *ad hoc* to be merged >>> into the library. Implementing a template in Cython was not considered >>> sufficient and is in fact very tricky to do, and unfortunately, I have not >>> received any constructive suggestions from maintainers about how to >>> proceed, so I'm opening this up to the mailing to see whether or not there >>> are better alternatives to what I did, whether this should be merged as it, >>> or whether this should be tabled until a better template can be found. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion