Neal Becker wrote:
I believe we are converging, and this is pretty much the same design as I advocated. It is similar to boost::ublas.
I'm grateful to hear that. It is nice when ideas come from several different corners.
Storage is one concept.
Interpretation of the storage is another concept.
Numpy is a combination of a storage and interpretation.
Storage could be dense or sparse. Allocated in various ways. Sparse can be implemented in different ways.
Interpretation can be 1-d, 2-d. Zero-based, non-zero based. Also there is question of ownership (slices).
How do we extend the buffer interface then? Do we have one API that allows sharing of storage and another that handles sharing of interpretation?
How much detail should be in the interface regarding storage detail. Is there a possibility of having at least a few storage models "shareable" so that memory can be shared by others that view the data in the same way?