Stefan Behnel wrote: > Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> [a couple of unnecessary words stripped] >> Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> OK, how about we get the feature with the less controversial syntax, >>> and then re-open the discussion if desired. >> Assuming you mean "simd[int, (stridespecs)]" is less controversial here: >> >> My main issue with this solution is what precendence it creates for how >> project issues are settled. I don't like having a project culture where >> stamina in these long threads is what counts in the end -- I'd much >> rather have a clear, open voting process. >> >> But hear this: If both Robert and Stefan agrees about a syntax, whatever >> the conclusion is, I won't say another word. > > Note that I raised a problem that you didn't solve so far, either. We > currently have a syntax for an array type (basically the C syntax) and a > syntax for the proposed SIMD type (int[:,:]). What we do not have is a > syntax for a memory view that does not have SIMD semantics, especially not > one that works in pure Python mode also. I assume that would use > > cdef MemoryView[int,int] v > > in the original setup, which I would call inconsistent with all other > syntax we have for this. > > >> (That is, you need to get the stridespecs in, and I'll state now that >> I'd really, really prefer a Python-grammar-compatible syntax, unlike the >> alternative proposals until now. Getting SIMD in pure Python mode with >> the same type syntax is one of the neatest point in the whole int[:,:] >> syntax.) > > Ok, so what about changing the template syntax then. Here's an idea. As I > said before, I'm a big fan of keyword arguments.
<SNIP making this thread longer, and not even offering a comment to my blunt post> I'm sorry, I'm pulling out of the whole thing. It just takes too much time on the mailing list. If somebody else want to finish the CEPs and implement it then I'd be thrilled though. I suppose my real question was "can you just trust me on developing numerics and Cython further in this direction, I have these ideas I've been developing as an active numerics user and Cython developer over the past year". I suppose the answer I got was "no, we have to do it all by comittee, and go through all the points in detail on the mailing list". As it is, it looks like even if we could agree on a syntax, I'd still have to go to the mailing list for every little nick and cranny in the semantics, checking if it could be acceptable for both numerical and non-numerical use. I just don't have the time for that. I think the real way forward for CEPs like these might be putting them on hold until we can meet in person -- if we need to design by comittee, let's be a real comittee. Emails just take too long, with days going by over simple misunderstandings. (Even if writing an email doesn't always take long, it is really testing for my patience to spend weeks before asking a question to seeing a resolution.) The good news is that I can use what Cython time I have for better mentoring Kurt and fix more boring bugs. -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
