[Numpy-discussion] Numeric3

Travis Oliphant oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Thu Feb 10 12:28:23 EST 2005

Perry Greenfield wrote

>In our view the issue isn't who owns the array package but
>getting one that satisfies the needs of the great majority.
>We are not sure how feasible the approach Travis is using is 
>so we are taking a wait-and-see position on it. We hope he
>is successful in achieving these goals.
I've known it was a risk from the beginning, and I don't expect people 
to believe me until I can "show them the code." 

>We intend to stay engaged in design and interface discussions
>with Travis, and encourage any others that have a stake in
>numarray capabilities to do so as well.

Thanks for the email, Perry.

Toward that end, I would really appreciate knowing from anybody who 
understands, which C-API calls are seen as most relevant and new.

For example, after the discussion on this list, I can understand that 
having the ability to "copy-back to a mis-behaved object" can be useful, 
and it has pointed out holes in the Numeric API (holes which we all know 
are there).   I still don't know about having three different API calls 
to do it (instead of just a flag in the requires argument).

Over the next few weeks, I will be putting together a PEP-like 
document.  This PEP will essentially discuss the behavior of the 
arrayobject that we would like to see in the Python core.    I will need 
lots of feedback and help with it, so I will post it to the Numeric page 
as it develops.    There are a couple of unresolved issues that need 
comments.  Hopefully, the PEP will help sort those out.   I think 
though, there are only a couple of issues.  And I'm confident these can 
be worked out satisfactorily.   I have no plans to submit the PEP until 
it has received attention from everybody interested.

Best regards to all,

-Travis Oliphant

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list