[Numpy-discussion] Re: Numeric life as I see it
oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Thu Feb 10 01:31:21 CST 2005
>> One question we are pursuing is could the arrayobject get into the
>> core without a particular ufunc object. Most see this as
>> sub-optimal, but maybe it is the only way.
> Since all the artithmetic operations are in ufunc that would be
> suboptimal solution, but indeed still a workable one.
I think replacing basic number operations of the arrayobject should
simple, so perhaps a default ufunc object could be worked out for
>> I appreciate some of what Paul is saying here, but I'm not fully
>> convinced that this is still true with Python 2.2 and up new-style
>> c-types. The concerns seem to be over the fact that you have to
>> re-implement everything in the sub-class because the base-class will
>> always return one of its objects instead of a sub-class object.
> I'd say that such discussions should be postponed until someone
> proposes a good use for subclassing arrays. Matrices are not one, in
> my opinion.
Agreed. It is is not critical to what I am doing, and I obviously need
more understanding before tackling such things. Numeric3 uses the new
c-type largely because of the nice getsets table which is separate from
the methods table. This replaces the rather ugly C-functions getattr
More information about the Numpy-discussion