[Numpy-discussion] Created NumPy 1.7.x branch

Dag Sverre Seljebotn d.s.seljebotn@astro.uio...
Tue Jun 26 05:41:54 CDT 2012


On 06/26/2012 11:58 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> <d.s.seljebotn@astro.uio.no>  wrote:
>> On 06/26/2012 05:35 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík<ondrej.certik@gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to
>>>> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and
>>>> also that little changes (with the best intentions!) that however mean
>>>> either a breakage or confusion for users (due to historical reasons)
>>>> should be avoided if possible. And I very strongly feel the same way.
>>>> And I think that most people on this list do as well.
>>>
>>> I think Travis is more concerned about API than ABI changes (in that
>>> example for 1.4, the ABI breakage was caused by a change that was
>>> pushed by Travis IIRC).
>>>
>>> The relative importance of API vs ABI is a tough one: I think ABI
>>> breakage is as bad as API breakage (but matter in different
>>> circumstances), but it is hard to improve the situation around our ABI
>>> without changing the API (especially everything around macros and
>>> publicly accessible structures). Changing this is politically
>>
>> But I think it is *possible* to get to a situation where ABI isn't
>> broken without changing API. I have posted such a proposal.
>> If one uses the kind of C-level duck typing I describe in the link
>> below, one would do
>>
>> typedef PyObject PyArrayObject;
>>
>> typedef struct {
>>     ...
>> } NumPyArray; /* used to be PyArrayObject */
>
> Maybe we're just in violent agreement, but whatever ends up being used
> would require to change the *current* C API, right ? If one wants to

Accessing arr->dims[i] directly would need to change. But that's been 
discouraged for a long time. By "API" I meant access through the macros.

One of the changes under discussion here is to change PyArray_SHAPE from 
a macro that accepts both PyObject* and PyArrayObject* to a function 
that only accepts PyArrayObject* (hence breakage). I'm saying that under 
my proposal, assuming I or somebody else can find the time to implement 
it under, you can both make it a function and have it accept both 
PyObject* and PyArrayObject* (since they are the same), undoing the 
breakage but allowing to hide the ABI.

(It doesn't give you full flexibility in ABI, it does require that you 
somewhere have an "npy_intp dims[nd]" with the same lifetime as your 
object, etc., but I don't consider that a big disadvantage).

> allow for changes in our structures more freely, we have to hide them
> from the headers, which means breaking the code that depends on the
> structure binary layout. Any code that access those directly will need
> to be changed.
>
> There is the particular issue of iterator, which seem quite difficult
> to make "ABI-safe" without losing significant performance.

I don't agree (for some meanings of "ABI-safe"). You can export the data 
(dataptr/shape/strides) through the ABI, then the iterator uses these in 
whatever way it wishes consumer-side. Sort of like PEP 3118 without the 
performance degradation. The only sane way IMO of doing iteration is 
building it into the consumer anyway.

I didn't think about whether API breakage would be needed for iterators 
though, that may be the case, I just didn't look at it yet.

Dag


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list