[SciPy-user] shell for scipy

Fernando Perez scipy-user@scipy.net
Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:37:23 -0700 (MST)

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:

> >>>>> "FP" == Fernando Perez <fperez@pizero.colorado.edu> writes:
>     FP> I think IPython is indeed quite nice, and in combination with
> IPython is really nice and a must use for any serious Pythoner. :)
> [snip]
>     FP> I would therefore like to hear from the scipy users/developers
>     FP> about interest on this topic.  I honestly think that ipython
>     FP> provides some of the most solid low-level interface of all the
>     FP> current python shells, but it's text only.  I definitely can't
>     FP> do the work of writing a large graphical layer above it, but
>     FP> I'd be more than happy to coordinate witha larger team for the
>     FP> necessary rewrites.
> Well, you know my state of affairs well enough to know that I cant
> volunteer time but I think the idea of a redesign is good and worth it
> in the long run.  If there is serious interest the rewrite/redesign
> will only make it easier for those who wish to see a graphical
> frontend.  Besides, if its easy enough perhaps the existing GUI shells
> can all incorporate the IPython "engine".  However, I have no idea if
> that would be possible at all.
> In any case I think it would be really nice if IPython could be
> embedded in any GUI shell.  That would really make for an extremely
> powerful pycrust or pyshell.

Ah.  Apologies to Prabhu, the mail I just sent a moment ago is basically a 
copy of his suggestion.  I wasn't trying to 'steal' it, it's just that I've 
been super-swamped with urgent work this week and had fallen behind in my 
email.  I'm trying to catch up and hadn't re-read Prabhu's message when I 

Just to add something following Prabhu's comments, maybe it will be worth 
cleaning up ipython's internals regardless.  I guess if it's clean inside, the 
activation barrier for anyone starting a gui project on top of it is that much 

But I'm really busy, and I'm not sure I'll want to commit the time for that 
'just in case'.  As I said, for a text-only client I can work with the current 
code quite well, messy as it is (and it's fairly bug-free as far as I can