On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Peter Alexander <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 b) Is outdated 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 >
[...] 6) Provide simple (up-front) information to users about bug reporting/querying, enhancement proposals, utilizing the wiki as documentation appendage for users.. _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
