Charles R Harris
Wed Jan 16 13:47:05 CST 2008
On Jan 16, 2008 11:30 AM, Neal Becker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hans Meine wrote:
> > Am Montag, 14. Januar 2008 19:59:15 schrieb Neal Becker:
> >> I don't want to use FROM_O here, because I really can only handle
> >> types. If I used FROM_O, then after calling FROM_O, if the type was
> >> one I could handle, I'd have to call FromAny and convert it.
> > What is the problem with that? Is there any, apart from the code not
> > being as elegant as one might want it to be?
> > AFAICS, it would be nice to have a function that takes a PyObject and a
> > list
> > of supported types and would perform the minimal needed conversion.
> > if your code is templatized, it is maybe already written in an STL-style
> > way,
> > using iterators? Then, it would be very simple to provide a set of
> > iterators that e.g. promote unsigned short->int such that your algorithm
> > can work on the original data without creating a copy.
> > Note that internally, ufuncs already do what you want. I have not yet
> > found the perfect way for a NumPy/C++ integration (which I am interested
> > in, possibly using boost::python which I have been doing for the last
> > years), but for element-wise operators, it would be very cool to be able
> > to re-use the ufunc mechanism (i.e. only implement the inner loop, not
> > caring about non-contiguous arrays etc.).
> I have been making some good progress on numpy/c++ integration. I can
> some examples if there is interest.
I would be interested in that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion