I'm not sure I'd want a clone of a Python style API; I'd rather have something
that's idiomatic lisp. I like Marco's idea of a spec, however beyond
documentation (and that is valuable), it mostly means we can have multiple
implementations, and I suspect they'd end up like everything else, half-baked,
poorly documented implementations of the spec.
I think we can do a lot of useful work without cloning the entire Numpy API.
The real challenge, IMO, is what Marco outlines below. Getting the community to
rally behind a single implementation that they didn't cook up themselves in
their garage whilst watching TV and drinking beer. NIH disease runs rampant.
There are however enough high-quality starting points (libraries) that might be
worth looking at. I think tpapp's stuff is good, with generally small codebase
and an API worked out via actual usage in a real-world environment.
Cheers, Steve
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 05:19:25 AM GMT+8, Marco Antoniotti
<marco.antonio...@unimib.it> wrote:
IMHO, it'd be easier and effective to band up together and FIRST write a
proper API specification and THEN implement it in CL.
But Common Lispers are like academics: the "herding cats" applies.
Cheers
Marco
PS I am a Common Lisper AND an academic. You know what I mean...
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:09 PM Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote:
Has anyone taken the Numpy C API and created a CFFI library based on it? I see
some attempts to clone it in pure CL, but I would guess that just using it
through its API might be easier and more effective.
