[SciPy-dev] poll for renaming scipy_core online

eric jones 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?

thanks,
eric




More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list