Re: [Python-Dev] Clarification sought about including a multidimensional array object into Python core
1) What specifically about Numeric prevented it from being acceptable as an addition to the Python core. It's very long ago, I believe that the authors themselves didn't think it was good enough. It certainly had a very hackish coding style. Numarray was supposed to fix all that. I'm sorry to hear that it hasn't (yet) reached the maturity you find necessary. 2) Are there any fixed requirements (other than coding style) before an arrayobject would be accepted into the Python core. The intended user community must accept the code as best-of-breed. It seems that the Num* community has some work to do in this respect. Also (this applies to all code) the code must be stable enough that the typical Python release cycle (about 18 months between feature releases) doesn't cause problems. Finally there must be someone willing to be responsible for maintenance of the code. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Clarification sought about including a multidimensional array object into Python core
Travis Oliphant wrote: I am a co-author of the current PEP regarding inclusion of the multidimensional array object into the core. However, that PEP is sorely outdated. [...] 1) What specifically about Numeric prevented it from being acceptable as an addition to the Python core. 2) Are there any fixed requirements (other than coding style) before an arrayobject would be accepted into the Python core. I think you answered these questions yourself. If a PEP is sorely outdated after only 3 years of its life, there clearly is something wrong with the PEP. Python language features will have to live 10 years or so before they can be considered outdated, and then another 20 years before they can be removed (look at string exceptions as an example). So if it is still not clear what kind of API would be adequate after all these years, it is best (IMO) to wait a few more years for somebody to show up with a good solution to the problem (which I admit I don't understand). Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Clarification sought about including a multidimensional array object into Python core
Martin v. Löwis wrote: Travis Oliphant wrote: I am a co-author of the current PEP regarding inclusion of the multidimensional array object into the core. However, that PEP is sorely outdated. [...] 1) What specifically about Numeric prevented it from being acceptable as an addition to the Python core. 2) Are there any fixed requirements (other than coding style) before an arrayobject would be accepted into the Python core. I think you answered these questions yourself. If a PEP is sorely outdated after only 3 years of its life, there clearly is something wrong with the PEP. Exactly, the PEP does not reflect the reality of what anybody wants in the core. It needs modification, or replacment. Can I just do that? Or do I need permission from Barrett and others who has only a passing interest in this anymore. Python language features will have to live 10 years or so before they can be considered outdated, and then another 20 years before they can be removed (look at string exceptions as an example). I think you misunderstood my meaning. For example Numeric has lived 10 years with very few changes. It seems to me it is rather stable. So if it is still not clear what kind of API would be adequate after all these years, it is best (IMO) to wait a few more years for somebody to show up with a good solution to the problem (which I admit I don't understand). It actually is pretty clear to many. There have been a wide variety of modules written on top of Numeric and Numarray. Most of the rough spots around the edges have been ironed out. Our arguments now are about packaging other code living on top of an arrayobject. Thanks for your help, -Travis ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Clarification sought about including a multidimensional array object into Python core
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:45:18 -0800, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The intended user community must accept the code as best-of-breed. It seems that the Num* community has some work to do in this respect. I've not followed the num* discussion in quite a while, but my impression back then was that there wasn't one such community. Instead, the technical differences in the approaches required in specific fields, regarding things like the relative importance of memory profiles, speed, error handling, willingness to require modern C++ compilers, etc. made practical compromises quite tricky. I would love to be proven wrong. --david ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Clarification sought about including a multidimensional array object into Python core
David Ascher wrote: I've not followed the num* discussion in quite a while, but my impression back then was that there wasn't one such community. Instead, the technical differences in the approaches required in specific fields, regarding things like the relative importance of memory profiles, speed, error handling, willingness to require modern C++ compilers, etc. made practical compromises quite tricky. I really appreciate comments from those who remember some of the old discussions. There are indeed some different needs. Most of this, however, is in the ufunc object (how do you do math with the arrays). And, a lot of this has been ameliorated with the new concepts of error modes that numarray introduced. There is less argumentation over the basic array object as a memory structure. The biggest argument right now is the design of the object: i.e. a mixture of Python and C (numarray) versus a C-only object (Numeric3). In other words, what I'm saying is that in terms of how the array object should be structure, a lot is known. What is more controversial is should the design be built upon Numarray's object structure (a mixture of Python and C), or on Numeric's --- all in C -Travis ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Clarification sought about including a multidimensional array object into Python core
Travis Oliphant wrote: Exactly, the PEP does not reflect the reality of what anybody wants in the core. It needs modification, or replacment. Can I just do that? My understanding is this: you can, and you should. You are the author of the PEP (together with Paul Barrett), and the PEP is still in Draft status (with a Python-Version of 2.2). Until the PEP is Accepted or Rejected status, you can make any changes to it that you want. It would be nice if you would track the Post-History section, and perhaps a History section at the end, pointing out that the PEP got completely restructured at some point. Or do I need permission from Barrett and others who has only a passing interest in this anymore. According to PEP 1, you could ask Barrett for a complete takeover, to remove him from the Authors list. If he agrees, there would be no problem to change that list after so much time has passed. I think you misunderstood my meaning. For example Numeric has lived 10 years with very few changes. It seems to me it is rather stable. I probably misunderstand something. If Numeric has been stable for 10 years, why is not good (no need to answer here - an answer in the PEP would be appreciated)? If there is something new to replace it, how stable is that? Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Clarification sought about including a multidimensional array object into Python core
Travis Oliphant wrote: In other words, what I'm saying is that in terms of how the array object should be structure, a lot is known. What is more controversial is should the design be built upon Numarray's object structure (a mixture of Python and C), or on Numeric's --- all in C To me, this sounds like an implementation detail. I'm sure it is an important detail, as I understand all of this is mostly done for performance reasons. The PEP should list the options, include criteria for selection, and then propose a choice. People can then discuss whether the list of options is complete (if not, you need to extend it), whether the criteria are agreed (they might be not, and there might be difficult consensus, which the PEP should point out), and whether the choice is the right one given the criteria (there should be no debate about this - everybody should agree factually that the choice meets the criteria best). Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
