On Jun 19, 2009, at 11:39 AM, 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.
I don't think we agree yet, but it I think that can be postponed and discussing it now isn't getting anywhere quickly. > 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. Nope, it's not on equal footing--I see little demand for a memory view that explicitly does not have SIMD semantics (not sure what it would have) but see a large demand for a memory view with such semantics. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
