[Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2

Travis E. Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
Mon Aug 18 11:26:15 CDT 2008


Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com 
> <mailto:cournape@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau
>     <cournape@gmail.com <mailto:cournape@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
>     > <charlesr.harris@gmail.com <mailto:charlesr.harris@gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>     >>
>     >> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no
>     C-ABI changes in
>     >> 1.2.
>     >
>     > It does not make sense to revert those changes anymore,
>
>     Actually, I did not follow the discussion when this change happened,
>     but it does not look difficult to change the code such as we do not
>     break the ABI. Instead of replacing the flag, we can put it at the
>     end, and deprecate (but not remove) the old one.
>
>     Would anyone be strongly against that ?
>
>
> I have nothing against extensions when they can be made to serve. If a 
> dictionary gets added to ndarrays I hope it is done that way, likewise 
> for generalized ufuncs. In the present case I think Travis wants to 
> preserve the functionality while changing the name and type, and that 
> doesn't really fit the extension model. But I might be wrong about that.
The problem was that I didn't break ABI compatibility at 1.0.  I new the 
char was too small to hold what the field had really become (a flag 
field).    I had intended for 1.1 to be a potential ABI breakage, but 
this was changed when the release strategy changed.

But, there is no real functionality added by changing the ABI at this 
point.  I'm just looking to the future, but I can be convinced that it's 
too late.  

What about the version number changes.

-Travis



More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list