[Numpy-discussion] MapIter api
Charles R Harris
Mon Apr 15 14:36:44 CDT 2013
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Sebastian Berg
> On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 11:16 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Berg
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Hey,
> > the MapIter API has only been made public in master right? So
> > it is no
> > problem at all to change at least the mapiter struct, right?
> > I got annoyed at all those special cases that make things
> > difficult to
> > get an idea where to put i.e. to fix the boolean array-like
> > stuff. So
> > actually started rewriting it (and I already got one big
> > function that
> > does all index preparation -- ok it is untested but its
> > basically
> > there).
> > I would guess it is not really a big problem even if it was
> > public for
> > longer, since you shouldn't do those direct struct access
> > probably? But
> > just checking.
> > Since I got the test which mimics complex indexes in the
> > tests, I thinks
> > it should actually be feasible to do bigger refactoring there
> > without
> > having to worry too much about breaking things.
> > Looks like the public API went in last August but didn't make it into
> > the 1.7.x release. What sort of schedule are you looking at?
> Not sure about a schedule, I somewhat think it is not even that hard,
> but of course it would still take a while (once I get a bit further, I
> will put it out there, hopefully someone else will be interested to
> help), but certainly not aiming to get anything done for 1.8.
> My first idea was to just do the parsing differently and keep the
> mapiter part identical (or with minor modifications). That seems
> actually impractical, since MapIter has a lot of stuff that it does not
> need. Plus it seems to me that it might be worth it to use the new
> nditer. One could try keep the fields somewhat identical (likely
> identical enough to be binary compatible with that ufunc.at pull request
> even), but I am not even sure that that is something to aim for, since
> the ufunc.at could be modified too (and might get good speed
> improvements out of that).
> - Sebastian
Makes me wonder if we should expose the API in 1.8 if you are thinking a
change might be appropriate. Or am I missing something here?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion