[Numpy-discussion] Fortran was dead ... [was Re:rewriting NumPy code in C or C++ or similar]
Dag Sverre Seljebotn
Thu Mar 17 09:49:48 CDT 2011
On 03/17/2011 03:23 PM, Yung-Yu Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 17:46, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
> On 03/16/2011 10:14 PM, william ratcliff wrote:
> > Related to this, what is the status of fwrap? Can it be used with
> > fortran 95/2003 language features? There is a rather large code
> > crystallographic codebase (fullprof) that is written in fortran 77
> > that the author has been porting to fortran 95/2003 and actually
> > modules for. I'd like to write python bindings for it to make
> it more
> > scriptable...
> Fwrap 0.1.1 is out; it supports a subset of Fortran 95/2003, biggest
> limitation being modules not being present.
> Since then there's been quite a few unreleased improvements (like
> a much
> better and more flexible build based on waf instead of distutils).
> Does Fwrap support SCons? I use SCons everywhere :)
The current focus is on waf only. But "support" can mean a lot.
Fwrap really simply generate .h, .f90 and .pyx files (the latter being
Cython sources, which Cython use to generate .c sources). Oh, and
there's also a small probe script that tries to probe whether a Fortran
"real*8" really is a iso_c_binding c_double, and generates some headers.
So when I say we "support" waf, what is meant is we ship a default build
system which makes it convenient to build the results of using Fwrap
and/or invoke Fwrap on the fly.
So supporting scons is certainly a possibility. Last time I checked the
Fortran tools in waf were significantly better though (as a result of
Kurt's Fwrap work, I believe).
Myself I'll be migrating a project from scons to waf any day now. Since
the "numscons" effort died/failed it just seems more promising for
Python packaging (see Bento).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion