Guido van Rossum writes: > > What is the status of PEP 209? I see David Ascher is the champion of > > this PEP, but nothing has been written up. Is the intention of this > > PEP to make the current Numeric a built-in feature of Python or to > > re-implement and replace the current Numeric module? > > David has already explained why his name is on it -- basically, > David's name is on several PEPs but he doesn't currently have any time > to work on these, so other volunteers are most welcome to join. > > It is my understanding that the current Numeric is sufficiently messy > in implementation and controversial in semantics that it would not be > a good basis to start from. That is our (Rick, Perry, and I) belief also. > However, I do think that a basic multi-dimensional array object would > be a welcome addition to core Python. That's re-assuring. > Indeed. I think it's best to leave the buffer object out of your > implementation plans. There are several problems with it, and one of > the backburner projects is to redesign it to be much more to the point > (providing less, not more functionality). I agree and have already made the decision to leave it out. > > My opinion on this is that a new _fundamental_ built-in type should be > > created for memory allocation with features and an interface similar > > to the _mmap_ object. I'll call this a _malloc_ object. This would > > allow Numeric 2 to use either object interchangeably depending on the > > circumstance. The _string_ type could also benefit from this new > > object by using a read-only version of it. Since its an object, it's > > memory area should be safe from inadvertent deletion. > > Interesting. I'm actually not sufficiently familiar with mmap to > comment. But would the existing array module's array object be at all > useful? You can get to the raw bytes in C (using the C buffer API, > which is not deprecated) and it is extensible. I tried using this but had problems. I'll look into it again. > > Because of these and other new features in Numeric 2, I have a keen > > interest in the status of PEPs 207, 208, 211, 225, and 228; and also > > in the proposed buffer object. > > Here are some quick comments on the mentioned PEPs. I've got these PEPs on my desk and will comment on them when I can. > > I'm willing to implement this new _malloc_ object if members of the > > python-dev list are in agreement. Actually I see no alternative, > > given the current design of Numeric 2, since the Array class will > > initially be written completely in Python and will need a mutable > > memory buffer, while the _string_ type is meant to be a read-only > > object. > > Would you be willing to take over authorship of PEP 209? David Ascher > and the Numeric Python community will thank you. Yes, I'd gladly wield vast and inconsiderate power over unsuspecting pythoneers. ;-) -- Paul
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4