[Numpy-discussion] How to test f2py?

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Thu Feb 25 08:39:34 CST 2010

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:07 AM, David Cournapeau <david@silveregg.co.jp>wrote:

> Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com
> > <mailto:cournape@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris
> >     <charlesr.harris@gmail.com <mailto:charlesr.harris@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >      >
> >      > Boy, that code is *old*, it still uses Numeric ;) I don't think
> >     it can
> >      > really be considered a test suite, it needs lotsa love and it
> >     needs to get
> >      > installed. Anyway, f2py with py3k turns out to have string
> >     problems, and I
> >      > expect other type problems, so there is considerable work that
> >     needs to be
> >      > done to bring it up to snuff. Sounds like gsoc material. I'm not
> >     going to
> >      > worry about it any more until later.
> >
> >     If it would take a GSoC to make it up to work, it may be time better
> >     spent on improving fwrap.
> >
> >
> > How far along is fwrap? It looks like f2py2e was a project that got
> > dropped half way through an update, some exceptions are of the wrong
> > type, the tests need a complete rewrite, etc.
> Well, the f2py as included in numpy is at least stable, since it has
> been used with little to no change for scipy the last few years, whereas
> fwrap is largely untested on the scale of something like scipy. I was
> suggesting to look into fwrap *if* f2py would be really hard to make to
> work for python 3.x.
> What worries me for f2py is not so much the python code (at worst, we
> could hack something to call f2py through python 2.x for the 3.x build -
> numscons runs f2py out of process for // build) as much as the generated
> C code. Debugging code generators is rarely fun in my experience :)
It might not be too difficult to get f2py running with Python3.x. At first
try there were some places in the generated code that called Python string
functions that have gone away, but those should be fixable without too much
trouble. There may be a few other troublesome spots, but I don't think
things will be that difficult.

I'm more concerned for the long run. The code needs a fixed up test suite,
it needs documentation, and it needs a maintainer, at least for a while.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100225/8ace21fb/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list