Re: [Sugar-devel] sugar-pippy dependencies

2009-09-29 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 09/29/2009 02:35 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: El Tue, 29-09-2009 a las 12:36 +, Aleksey Lim escribió: Questions: 1) are there lighter-weight alternatives for the most popular uses of numpy? How about numarray? http://www.

Re: [Sugar-devel] sugar-pippy dependencies

2009-09-29 Thread Peter Robinson
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > El Tue, 29-09-2009 a las 16:25 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz escribió: >> Bernie Innocenti wrote: >> > 1) are there lighter-weight alternatives for the most popular uses of >> > numpy? >> >> No.  It has no competition, and is used by virtual

Re: [Sugar-devel] sugar-pippy dependencies

2009-09-29 Thread Bernie Innocenti
El Tue, 29-09-2009 a las 16:25 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz escribió: > Bernie Innocenti wrote: > > 1) are there lighter-weight alternatives for the most popular uses of > > numpy? > > No. It has no competition, and is used by virtually every program that > uses python and performs array manipulat

Re: [Sugar-devel] sugar-pippy dependencies

2009-09-29 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > El Tue, 29-09-2009 a las 12:36 +, Aleksey Lim escribió: > I suspect the #1 usecase for numpy is to compensate for lack of good > array support in Python. > > > Questions: > > 1) are there lighter-weight alternatives for the most popul

Re: [Sugar-devel] sugar-pippy dependencies

2009-09-29 Thread Peter Robinson
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > El Tue, 29-09-2009 a las 12:36 +, Aleksey Lim escribió: >> pygame and numpy are parts of Sugar Platform[1], at least for 0.84, >> so, the right question is should these pakcages be a part of SP-0.86 >> I guess +1 for both, since we hav

Re: [Sugar-devel] sugar-pippy dependencies

2009-09-29 Thread Bernie Innocenti
El Tue, 29-09-2009 a las 12:36 +, Aleksey Lim escribió: > pygame and numpy are parts of Sugar Platform[1], at least for 0.84, > so, the right question is should these pakcages be a part of SP-0.86 > I guess +1 for both, since we have honey activities that are depend on > these packages. In Sug