[Numpy-discussion] Scipy Cython refactor
Sun Feb 19 15:16:34 CST 2012
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Pauli Virtanen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 19.02.2012 05:38, Travis Oliphant kirjoitti:
> >>> 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:
> 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.
>From the numpy roadmap discussion, the sparsetools code might be a good
candidate for Cythonization. The 4.5MB of code SWIG is generating is mostly
parameter checking boilerplate, and if Cython lives up to its reputation,
it will be able to easily make this smaller and compile a lot faster. It
looks like neither of those two branches switched this code to Cython,
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion