>> One question we are pursuing is could the arrayobject get into the >> core without a particular ufunc object. Most see this as >> sub-optimal, but maybe it is the only way. > > > Since all the artithmetic operations are in ufunc that would be > suboptimal solution, but indeed still a workable one. I think replacing basic number operations of the arrayobject should simple, so perhaps a default ufunc object could be worked out for inclusion. > >> I appreciate some of what Paul is saying here, but I'm not fully >> convinced that this is still true with Python 2.2 and up new-style >> c-types. The concerns seem to be over the fact that you have to >> re-implement everything in the sub-class because the base-class will >> always return one of its objects instead of a sub-class object. > > > I'd say that such discussions should be postponed until someone > proposes a good use for subclassing arrays. Matrices are not one, in > my opinion. > Agreed. It is is not critical to what I am doing, and I obviously need more understanding before tackling such things. Numeric3 uses the new c-type largely because of the nice getsets table which is separate from the methods table. This replaces the rather ugly C-functions getattr and setattr. -Travis
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