I would say #2 sounds the most ideal, even though it would require the most development work on the OIIO side. While NumPy can be very useful (and, as you alluded to, is likely in large use among the people who use the OIIO Python bindings), I think requiring NumPy to build/use the bindings is a step too far. There may be users who are interested in the bindings purely for gathering metadata or otherwise inspecting images, with no intention of ever manipulating image data.
-Nathan On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> wrote: > I spent some time recently digging into more efficient data transfer > between OIIO and Python, and could use some feedback. > > Regarding NumPy... I would appreciate hearing which of the following > sounds right to you: > > 1. Anybody who needs to use OIIO from Python almost certainly already uses > NumPy as well, and even if they don't, it's no big deal to require it. > > 2. There are pros and cons to NumPy, it shouldn't be a hard requirement, > but it would be great if OIIO auto-detected it and supported it more > directly if present. > > 3. NumPy support is a distraction, ignore it. Even if I use NumPy, I > prefer to do the numpy-to-array conversions myself on the Python side of > things. > > 4. Something else (please explain). > > I'm a hardcore C++ programmer, but only occasionally work in Python, so I > really have no independent opinions on this nor much understanding of how > essential everybody considers NumPy to be. > > -- > Larry Gritz > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Oiio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >
_______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
