Thu Jan 17 15:23:41 CST 2008
Charles R Harris wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 11:30 AM, Neal Becker <email@example.com> 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.
I placed a little test code and a quick design doc here:
More information about the Numpy-discussion