On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Ravi <lists_ravi@lavabit.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday 23 September 2009 04:31:40 David Cournapeau wrote:
- it is much more likely that your improvements will be included if you provide patches instead of rewrite of the full code - it makes reviewing much easier.
In this case, I respectfully disagree; the full rewrite actually makes sense when comparing the previous code to the current one.
It can be a full rewrite, but still should be sent as patches. If I am the one to review, I would prefer this way. That's especially important to track regressions.
- I would also prefer having C instead of C++ as well - in this case, C++ does not bring much since we have our "templating" system and you don't use the STL much. - In any case, please do not use exception, it is not portable.
Are there any such compilers on which scipy can be compiled?
It is a fundamental problem of C++. Different compilers do not propagate exceptions the same way, and that's a problem when different compilers are involved (happens easily when the C and C++ compilers are not the same, for example). That has been a problem on every new platform I have tried to port numpy and scipy to. That's the same rationale as why avoiding fortran runtime calls - if you only use fortran, it is ok, but once you use the fortran runtime and the C runtime in the same extension, you get random crashes which are impossible to debug. cheers, David