I find those 2 names good.
I have 2 questions about .contig_bytes:
1) Why do we need it? As we changed the interface, I don't see a need.
User can use .flags.forc to check if it is contiguous.
2) What should .contig_bytes do when it is not contiguous? Don't
exist? Copy it automatically?
Do have the copy automatic, I think we should use the same
interface as numpy.{ascontiguousarray(c contiguous),asfortranarray}.
Fred
2011/5/3 Andreas Kloeckner <li...@informa.tiker.net>:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:30:18 -0400, Frédéric Bastien <no...@nouiz.org> wrote:
>> For the new name of .gpudata, what about using .data as numpy? The
>> only problem that I see is that people use the new gpu array with
>> numpy code and that the numpy code use the .data without checking if
>> its an numpy.ndarray first. I don't think this is going to be a real
>> problem. What do you think?
>
> I don't like .data because that's what pyopencl presently uses like
> .gpudata, so that has the same all-of-a-sudden-noncontiguous problem as
> PyCUDA's .gpudata. As much as possible, I'd like to keep the two
> interfaces the same.
>
> Are you strongly opposed to .bytes and .contig_bytes as new names?
>
> Andreas
>
_______________________________________________
PyCUDA mailing list
PyCUDA@tiker.net
http://lists.tiker.net/listinfo/pycuda
