[Numpy-discussion] Trying out Numeric3
oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Fri Mar 25 00:24:50 EST 2005
>I'm curious if you find PEP-296 sufficient:
>It is marked as "withdrawn by the author", but that is not really true. A
>more accurate statement would be "the author spent his allotted time
>defending and revising the PEP on the Python mailing list and was not left
>with sufficient time to finish the implementation on his corporate dollar".
> :-) It's a good PEP, and while my company uses Python quite extensively,
>after two weeks I had to get back to more direct goals...
Great to hear from you Scott. Yes, I looked at this PEP (though I
haven't studied it sufficiently to say if it's perfect for our needs or
not), but it is very close.
I did not know what "withdrawn by author" meant, thanks for
clarifying. How would somebody change the status of that and re-open
the PEP? I think it is a great place to start.
Also, numarray has a memory object implemented that is a good start on
the implementation. So, this wouldn't be a huge job at this point.
>Regardless, I think PEP-296 meets your needs (and several other groups in
>the Python community), and it might save someone the time recreating a new
>PEP from scratch. More importantly, it might save someone some of the time
>required to defend and argue the PEP on the Python mailing list. When the
>discussion cleared, Guido was very positive toward the PEP - I just never
>got it implemented...
Good to hear.
>The "meta" attribute would be a small change. It's possible to do that
>with composition or inheritance instead, but that's really a just matter of
I don't think I fully understand what you mean by "composition" --- like
a mixin class?
or how inheritance solves the problem on a C-API level?
I'm mainly thinking of Extension modules that want to use each others'
memory on a C-level. That would be the main use of the meta information.
>When I wrote the PEP, I had high hopes of creating a Python only "ndarray"
>class out of bytes and the struct module, so it was definitely targeted at
>needs similar to what I believe yours to be. Obviously you should do what
>is best for you, but I would be pleased if my wasted effort was revived and
> completed to actually be useful.
Numarray essentially did this. I think we still need a C-type object
But, it's great to hear you still believe in the byte object. I wasn't
More information about the NumPy-Discussion