[Numpy-discussion] Response to PEP suggestions

Colin J. Williams cjw at sympatico.ca
Sat Feb 19 16:40:10 EST 2005

Robert Kern wrote:

> konrad.hinsen at laposte.net wrote:
>> It all depends on the reaction of the Python developer community. We  
>> won't know before asking.
> I think it would be great to have a more thorough number hierarchy in 
> the standard library. So would some others. See PEPs 228 and 242. 
> However, I think that the issue is orthogonal getting an multiarray 
> object into the standard library. I'm not convinced that it actually 
> solves the problems with getting multiarrays into the core. Now, we 
> may have different priorities, so we have different thresholds of 
> "problem-ness."
PEP 228 is under consideration (since 2000):

          Numerical Python Issues

    People who use Numerical Python do so for high-performance vector
    operations.  Therefore, NumPy should keep its hardware based
    numeric model.

*Unresolved Issues*

    Which number literals will be exact, and which inexact?

    How do we deal with IEEE 754 operations? (probably, isnan/isinf should
    be methods)

    On 64-bit machines, comparisons between ints and floats may be
    broken when the comparison involves conversion to float.  Ditto
    for comparisons between longs and floats.  This can be dealt with
    by avoiding the conversion to float.  (Due to Andrew Koenig.)


For PEP 242 the status is:

    This PEP has been closed by the author.  The kinds module will not
    be added to the standard library.

    There was no opposition to the proposal but only mild interest in
    using it, not enough to justify adding the module to the standard
    library.  Instead, it will be made available as a separate
    distribution item at the Numerical Python site.  At the next
    release of Numerical Python, it will no longer be a part of the
    Numeric distribution.

It seems to be up to the numerical folk to make proposals.

Colin W.


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list