[SciPy-dev] poll for renaming scipy_core online
eric at enthought.com
Mon Jan 2 23:02:28 CST 2006
Fernando Perez wrote:
>eric jones wrote:
>>Fernando Perez wrote:
>>>2. It increases the value of numerix as a base layer for third-party
>>>scientific packages. I think authors will appreciate getting a few really
>>>good utilities for writing python scientific software, without making the full
>>>scipy a dependency.
>>>Weave (I think) also falls into this category, but its maintenance difficulty
>>>seems to tilt the decision in the direction of moving it to full scipy. I
>>>wish I could commit to maintaining it in numerix, but I really can't, and I
>>>understand Travis' desire to have numerix be a rock-solid, no-hassles-to-adopt
>>>foundation. It would be fantastic if someone with a C++ penchant wanted to
>>>pick this ball up.
>>I would love to say yes but am up to my ears in other commitments.
>>Everyone is back in the office tomorrow, so I'll talk it over with them
>>and see if we can come up with a strategy for maintaining weave.
>I think it's worth mentioning that weave up to the transition into the new
>scipy (I haven't really checked since) was working fairly well. All the bugs
>I had been seeing related to either compiler warnings or spurious
>recompilations had been fixed, and with the inclusion of the blitz 0.9
>sources, things work even with gcc4. So this isn't really a major development
>commitment, but rather one of 'being there' if the need arises, I think.
Thanks for the info. Have you tried it out with scipy_core arrays?
Does it work with these now?
More information about the Scipy-dev