On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Bruce Southey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2011 08:58 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just checking - but is this:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Bruce Southey<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> The one thing that we do need now is the code that implements the small
>>>> set of core ideas (array creation and simple numerical operations).
>>>> Hopefully that will provide a better grasp of the concepts and the
>>>> performance differences to determine the acceptability of the approach(es).
>>> in reference to this:
>>>
>>>> On 07/08/2011 07:15 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Can I ask - what do you recommend that we do now, for the discussion?
>>>>> Should we be quiet and wait until there is code to test, or, as
>>>>> Nathaniel has tried to do, work at reaching some compromise that makes
>>>>> sense to some or all parties?
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Matthew
>> Simply, I think the time for discussion has passed and it is now time to
>> see the 'cards'. I do not know enough (or anything) about the
>> implementation so I need code to know the actual 'cost' of Mark's idea
>> with real situations.
>
> Yes, I thought that was what you were saying.
>
> I disagree and think that discussion of the type that Nathaniel has
> started is a useful way to think more clearly and specifically about
> the API and what can be agreed.
>
> Otherwise we will come to the same impasse when Mark's code arrives.
> If that happens, we'll either lose the code because the merge is
> refused, or be forced into something that may not be the best way
> forward.
>
> Best,
>
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________


Unfortunately we need code from either side as an API etc. is not
sufficient to judge anything. But I do not think we will be forced
into anything as in the extreme situation you can keep old versions or
fork the code in the really extreme case.


Bruce
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Reply via email to