On Nov 10, 2007 4:39 AM, Hans Meine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Freitag 09 November 2007, Travis E. Oliphant wrote: > > > While this is > > > a good idea (also probably quite some work), the real thing bugging me is > > > that the above DOUBLE_add could (and should!) be called by the ufunc > > > framework in such a way that it is equally efficient for C and Fortran > > > arrays. > > > > Yes, that's what I was talking about. There is actually a path through > > the ufunc code where this loop is called only once. The requirement > > right now is that all the arrays are C-contiguous, but this should be > > changed to all arrays have the same contiguousness (and the output-array > > creation code changed to create Fortran-order arrays when the inputs are > > all Fortran-order). > > After some measurements, I must say that even the slower Fortran variant is > competitive (read: faster ;-) ), compared with our very flexible dynamic > functors used in the current interactive VIGRA. IOW: Good job. :-)
I am not suprised at all: although I've seen many times people saying that C++ can provide good abstractions without cost, this is not my experience, at least with g++. Whatever the method/library used (blitz, the ones in boost, etc...). I am really convinced that C++ provides the bad abstraction for numerical works (and the fundamental design decision of C++ to avoid extending the language to implement things in libraries instead is flawed, at least for numerical works). cheers, David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
