On Jan 16, 2008 11:30 AM, Neal Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hans Meine wrote: > > > Am Montag, 14. Januar 2008 19:59:15 schrieb Neal Becker: > >> I don't want to use FROM_O here, because I really can only handle > certain > >> types. If I used FROM_O, then after calling FROM_O, if the type was > not > >> one I could handle, I'd have to call FromAny and convert it. > > What is the problem with that? Is there any, apart from the code not > > being as elegant as one might want it to be? > > > > AFAICS, it would be nice to have a function that takes a PyObject and a > > list > > of supported types and would perform the minimal needed conversion. > OTOH, > > if your code is templatized, it is maybe already written in an STL-style > > way, > > using iterators? Then, it would be very simple to provide a set of > > iterators that e.g. promote unsigned short->int such that your algorithm > > can work on the original data without creating a copy. > > > > Note that internally, ufuncs already do what you want. I have not yet > > found the perfect way for a NumPy/C++ integration (which I am interested > > in, possibly using boost::python which I have been doing for the last > > years), but for element-wise operators, it would be very cool to be able > > to re-use the ufunc mechanism (i.e. only implement the inner loop, not > > caring about non-contiguous arrays etc.). > > > > I have been making some good progress on numpy/c++ integration. I can > share > some examples if there is interest. >
I would be interested in that. Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
