[Numpy-discussion] C-API change for 1.2
Charles R Harris
Sun Aug 17 00:51:38 CDT 2008
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau <email@example.com>
> > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI
> changes in
> >> 1.2.
> > It does not make sense to revert those changes anymore,
> Actually, I did not follow the discussion when this change happened,
> but it does not look difficult to change the code such as we do not
> break the ABI. Instead of replacing the flag, we can put it at the
> end, and deprecate (but not remove) the old one.
> Would anyone be strongly against that ?
I have nothing against extensions when they can be made to serve. If a
dictionary gets added to ndarrays I hope it is done that way, likewise for
generalized ufuncs. In the present case I think Travis wants to preserve the
functionality while changing the name and type, and that doesn't really fit
the extension model. But I might be wrong about that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion