[Numpy-discussion] Scipy Cython refactor

Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail....
Sun Feb 19 14:32:51 CST 2012


Hi,

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi> wrote:
> 19.02.2012 05:38, Travis Oliphant kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>>>> Sure.  This list actually deserves a long writeup about that.
>>>> First, there wasn't a "Cython-refactor" of NumPy.   There was a
>>>> Cython-refactor of SciPy.   I'm not sure of it's current status.
>>>> I'm still very supportive of that sort of thing.
>>>
>>> I think I missed that - is it on git somewhere?
>>
>> I thought so, but I can't find it either.  We should ask Jason
>> McCampbell of Enthought where the code is located.   Here are the
>> distributed eggs:   http://www.enthought.com/repo/.iron/
>
> They're here:
>
>    https://github.com/dagss/private-scipy-refactor
>    https://github.com/jasonmccampbell/scipy-refactor
>
> The main problem with merging this was the experimental status of FWrap,
> and the fact that the wrappers it generates are big compared to f2py and
> required manual editing of the generated code. So, there were
> maintainability concerns with the Fortran pieces.
>
> These could probably be solved, however, and I wouldn't be opposed to
> e.g. cleaning up the generated code and using manually crafted Cython.
> Cherry picking the Cython replacements for all the modules wrapped in C
> probably should be done in any case.
>
> The parts of Scipy affected by the refactoring have not changed
> significantly, so there are no significant problems in re-raising the
> issue of merging the work back.

Thanks for making a new thread.

Who knows this work best?

Who do you think should join the discussion to plan the work?

I might have some time for this - maybe a sprint would be in order,

Best,

Matthew


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list