On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com> wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:51 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Travis Oliphant <oliph...@enthought.com> > wrote: > > I apologize for the mis communication that has occurred here. > > No problem > > I did not > > understand that there was a desire to keep ABI compatibility with NumPy 1.3 > > when NumPy 1.4 was released. The datetime merge was made under that > > presumption. > > I had assumed that people would be fine with recompilation of extension > > modules that depend on the NumPy C-API. There are several things that > > needed to be done to merge in new fundamental data-types. > > Why don't we call the next release NumPy 2.0 if that helps things? > > Personally, I'd prefer that over hacks to keep ABI compatibility. > > Keeping ABI compatibility by itself is not an hack - the current > workaround is an hack, but that's only because the current way of > doing things in code generator is a bit ugly, and I did not want to > spend too much time on it. It is purely an implementation issue, the > fundamental idea is straightforward. > > If you want a cleaner solution, I can work on it. I think the hour or > so that it would take is worth it compared to breaking many people's > code. > > If that's all it would take, then definitely go for it. I'm not sure > "breaking people's code" is the right image, though. It's more like > "forcing people to upgrade" to take advantage of new features.
We got several people complaining about segfaults and the like - granted, those could have been avoided by updating the ABI accordingly. > The problem I have with spending time on it though is that there is still > more implementation work to finish on the datetime functionality to complete > the NEP implementation. Naturally, I'd like to see those improvements > made first. But, time-spent is usually a function of how much time it takes > to "get-in" to the code, so I won't try to distract you if you have a clear > idea about how to proceed. I am applying my changes as we speak - it took me much more time than I wished because I tried hard to make sure the ABI was not changed. But at least, the current scheme should be much more robust: the ordering is fixed at one single place, and there are a few checks which ensure we don't screw things up (by putting 'holes' in the api array, or by using twice the same index). cheers, David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
