Hi, On 26 July 2014 11:19, Antonio Cuni <anto.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > this looks interesting, but from a quick look it seems they are only > offering a C++ API? > In that case, it might be better/easier to wrap it through cppyy than cffi.
One or the other, yes. > Also, did Travis told you what are the plans for scipy? No. As far as I know the basic library is still in development. It's just that I have somehow a feeling that the current speed at which numpypy progresses is rather slow, and it has a huge existing code base of expectations as well as messy backward-compatibility requirements. If we could instead throw that away and attach our wagon to the newer development, even if it takes another couple of years before it becomes usable, then it seems like a long-term win to me. Also, a cffi or cppyy version seems easier than a RPython version for third-party contributors to help maintain, too. A bientôt, Armin. _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
