Hi, On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Bruce Southey <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
If I understand correctly, we are not going to get code from either side, we are only going to get code from one side. I cannot now see how the code will inform the discussion about the API, unless it turns out that the proposed API cannot be implemented. The substantial points are not about memory use or performance, but about how the API should work. If you can see some way that the code will inform the discussion, please say, I would honestly be grateful. > 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. That would be a terrible waste, and potentially damaging to the community, so of course we want to do all we can to avoid those outcomes. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
