On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:06 AM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Looks like a clue ;) > > Ok, I fixed it here: > > http://github.com/cournape/numpy/tree/fix_abi > > But that's an ugly hack. I think we should consider rewriting how we > generate the API: instead of automatically growing the API array of > fptr, we should explicitly mark which function name has which index, > and hardcode it. It would help quite a bit to avoid changing the ABI > unvoluntary. > > I'm thinking the safest thing to do is to move the new type to the end of the list. I'm not sure what all the ramifications are for compatibility to having it stuck in the middle like that, does it change the type numbers for all the types after? I wonder what the type numbers are internally? No doubt putting it at the end makes the logic for casting more difficult, but that is something that needs fixing anyway. Question - if the new type is simply removed from the list does anything break? Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
