On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <[email protected]> wrote: > Christopher Barker wrote: >> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>> - Numerical computations in Cython (a copy of the corresponding paper) >> >>> 4) I think the current Cython/NumPy tutorial should be removed in favour >>> of the above generic tutorial + numerical Cython paper; opinions on that? >> >> Well, one good intro to numpy+cython is better than two that both need >> to be maintained. > > Thanks for your feedback. My thoughts: > > Yes, but the existing intro on numpy+cython: > a) Lacks quite a bit in several areas > b) Is outdated > > While the tutorial + paper is already written now. > >> However, maybe it's my personal use-case bias, but I think that numpy is >> almost a standard part of Cython use -- I can't think of what I'd like >> to optimize that I wouldn't want to use numpy for! And numpy is why I >> skipped past pyrex and straight to Cython. > > Well, take Stefan Behnel, who doesn't use NumPy at all, but rather works > with XML documents. > > Even within science, the whole Sage project (a very important Cython > user) don't use that much NumPy either, and in particular not the > Cython/NumPy features, as they need exact math which isn't covered by > NumPy's dtypes (and also tend to operate on thousands rather than > billions of numbers I think?). > > Then you have any kind of wrappers around native libraries. > > There's enough usecases for Cython without NumPy to make our primary > Cython tutorial generic and not targeted for numerical users IMO. > > And then you have the question of whether one should have *two* > tutorials. Perhaps a very small intro document for numerical users which > links heavily into the other documents... > > > -- > Dag Sverre > _______________________________________________ > Cython-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev >
1) Minh, I have a now repo[1] at bitbucket where I will push to often. 2) I agree that Numpy should be a seperate TOC entry, because it deserves special, detailed attention. 3) After some thought and review, the current abstract structure of the docs are good. 4) We need to: a) incorporate all the possible new information, b) add lots of (cross)-references c) and lots of integrated (flowing) examples. 4) Refactor and minimize verbosity. 4) Consider the possiblity of a "Quick Ref" section which are essentially an index of "HowTos" for fast look-up (Its nice to immediately put your fingers on something your looking for, without having to have to read half a page of paragraphs). These could simply be an index of links in to the main doc sections.. maybe.. 5) Consider how to incorporate what Python syntax Cython currently optimizes and what it does not. We need to elliminate this frustrating enigma for un-informed users. Also, whats on the near term agenda for new, further optimizations of syntax magic, etc.. [1] http://bitbucket.org/travlr/cython-docs _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
