oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Thu Feb 10 12:28:23 CST 2005
Perry Greenfield wrote
>In our view the issue isn't who owns the array package but
>getting one that satisfies the needs of the great majority.
>We are not sure how feasible the approach Travis is using is
>so we are taking a wait-and-see position on it. We hope he
>is successful in achieving these goals.
I've known it was a risk from the beginning, and I don't expect people
to believe me until I can "show them the code."
>We intend to stay engaged in design and interface discussions
>with Travis, and encourage any others that have a stake in
>numarray capabilities to do so as well.
Thanks for the email, Perry.
Toward that end, I would really appreciate knowing from anybody who
understands, which C-API calls are seen as most relevant and new.
For example, after the discussion on this list, I can understand that
having the ability to "copy-back to a mis-behaved object" can be useful,
and it has pointed out holes in the Numeric API (holes which we all know
are there). I still don't know about having three different API calls
to do it (instead of just a flag in the requires argument).
Over the next few weeks, I will be putting together a PEP-like
document. This PEP will essentially discuss the behavior of the
arrayobject that we would like to see in the Python core. I will need
lots of feedback and help with it, so I will post it to the Numeric page
as it develops. There are a couple of unresolved issues that need
comments. Hopefully, the PEP will help sort those out. I think
though, there are only a couple of issues. And I'm confident these can
be worked out satisfactorily. I have no plans to submit the PEP until
it has received attention from everybody interested.
Best regards to all,
More information about the Numpy-discussion