[SciPy-dev] More bugs fixed
rkern at ucsd.edu
Fri Oct 7 07:11:47 CDT 2005
Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
>>Incidentally, what's the plan for merging the full scipy (and
>>specifically scipy.linalg and scipy.fftpack) with scipy_core?
> My greatly-thought-out plan ;-) is to just over-write the old with the new.
> The trouble I suppose is that the interfaces do change (in keywords and
> stuff) for some of the function calls in scipy's version of these things.
> So, I'm not sure how to handle that. A better solution might be to have
> new names for the core sub packages. Perhaps we should call fftpack
> ffts and linalg linear in the core distribution.
> Then people would always know what they were caling, instead of my badly
> thought out current plan.
I *would* prefer that the modules under scipy_core be separate from the
modules in scipy proper. At the moment, I have scipy_core and scipy
built as separate eggs with proper namespace package support.
[site-packages]$ ls -d scipy*.egg
(Ignore scipy_complete, that's the old scipy. Thanks to eggs, I can
easily switch back and forth between old and new scipy.)
Both scipy-0.4.2*.egg and scipy_core-0.4.2*.egg are in my PYTHONPATH. By
installing the setuptools importhooks:
to the scipy/__init__.py files of both eggs, both eggs are recognized as
providing parts of the package "scipy". However, the system won't handle
multiple definitions of subpackages. I think it would be quite nice to
be able to distribute scipy_linalg, scipy_optimize, scipy_stats, etc. as
eggs that may depend on each other.
As an aside, I've ported my bindings to ODRPACK to use scipy_core. It
took about five minutes (most of which was spent simply modernizing the
old code rather than, strictly speaking, porting it). It's now sitting
in scipy.sandbox.odr and it works! Color me impressed.
rkern at ucsd.edu
"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter
More information about the Scipy-dev