[Numpy-discussion] Math Library
Sun Apr 18 08:35:53 CDT 2010
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Charles R Harris
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Travis Oliphant <email@example.com>
>> On Apr 11, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Sebastian Walter wrote:
>> > Ermm, the reply above is quite poor, sorry about that.
>> > What I meant to say is the following:
>> > If there is going to be a discussion about creating a pure C numpy
>> > library I'd like to join ;)
>> Great. I would really like to get the discussion going. In an
>> ideal world we can finish any kind of significant re-factoring in time
>> for SciPy this year. It actually feels like the kind of thing that
>> can motivate NumPy 2.0 a bit better.
>> It sounds to me like nobody will be opposed as long as there is
>> continuity to the project and current code still works without
>> disruption (i.e. the current C-API for Python extensions is available).
>> I am interested in re-factoring in such a way to create minimal impact
>> on current NumPy C-API users, but improve maintainability going
>> forward and the ability for other projects to use NumPy.
> My own thoughts were to have a lowlevel 'loop' library that worked with
> strided memory, and an intermediate level above that for buffer objects.
> Numpy ufuncs would be a level above that and implement policy type things
> like casting, kinds, etc.
> Then there is the lowlevel c-library for the functions. I don't think we
> should aim at duplicating commonly available functions like sin and exp, but
> rather that subset that are sometimes unavailable. In particular, I would
> like to get away from having to use double versions of functions instead of
> type specific versions.
This sounds reasonable. However, I'm not sure that I understand exactly what
the consequences would be. Maybe it would be a good idea that one
writes down prototypical examples that should be supported by the new
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion