On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > Me and Kurt's been talking about (finally) getting the memory views > merged. Initially I held back because I wanted to do my part of the > job > first (support indexing, currently they only support raw buffer access > and copying), but in the light of how long that's been taking me it's > better to get things merged now -- especially as Kurt has a use for > the > existing functionality in fwrap.
I think we should probably be merging this stuff, but just to confirm what I'm reading below, it's all new stuff (not changing or breaking what's there, right)? > Question first: > - Should the memoryview namespace be named "cython.view", > "cython.memview", "cython.memoryview", "cython.mview", > "cython.memory", > "cython.buffer"? When will the user be seeing this namespace? Is it all hidden in the int[:] syntax (in which case it shouldn't matter much)? Are there a plethera of functions, or do you just need a place to stick a single class (in which case the namespace might be unneeded, though there's still the question of naming the class). > The functionality should be considered experimental until Cython 0.14, Same with C++, though I know I won't have the time to clean it all up by a specific date or revision. > but it shouldn't interfer as long as you don't use the above namespace > or the int[:]-syntax. > > The gsoc-kurt branch has had the changes from cython-devel merged into > it and there's no real conflict, but some stuff left to do. The way > things are looking I suggest that: > > a) The closure branch gets to merge first > > b) We try to keep gsoc-kurt updated and merge it afterwards. Kurt > should > hopefully be able to plan on gsoc-kurt being merged in time for 0.13 > and > use it for fwrap development. > > Open tasks before we can merge gsoc-kurt: > - Types created by Cython output in wrong order (again!). This is > getting silly, and somebody, meaning me I guess, should code up a DAG > for outputting type declarations in their right order. See > http://trac.cython.org/cython_trac/ticket/469. > - memview_declarations fail due to "invalid use of follow specifier". > Kurt, could you have a look? If for whatever reason these don't look feasible by 0.13, let's not hold up the release for it. > Open tasks we can look at after the merge: > - Consistent and better naming (memview vs. view vs. memoryview vs. > mview used in the source) > - More memory efficient dynamic struct generation > - Item indexing > - Transform NumPy accesses to memoryview (probably not until 0.13.1 at > least). Sounds good. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
