19.02.2012 05:38, Travis Oliphant kirjoitti:
[clip]
>>> Sure. This list actually deserves a long writeup about that.
>>> First, there wasn't a "Cython-refactor" of NumPy. There was a
>>> Cython-refactor of SciPy. I'm not sure of it's current status.
>>> I'm still very supportive of that sort of thing.
>>
>> I think I missed that - is it on git somewhere?
>
> I thought so, but I can't find it either. We should ask Jason
> McCampbell of Enthought where the code is located. Here are the
> distributed eggs: http://www.enthought.com/repo/.iron/
They're here:
https://github.com/dagss/private-scipy-refactor
https://github.com/jasonmccampbell/scipy-refactor
The main problem with merging this was the experimental status of FWrap,
and the fact that the wrappers it generates are big compared to f2py and
required manual editing of the generated code. So, there were
maintainability concerns with the Fortran pieces.
These could probably be solved, however, and I wouldn't be opposed to
e.g. cleaning up the generated code and using manually crafted Cython.
Cherry picking the Cython replacements for all the modules wrapped in C
probably should be done in any case.
The parts of Scipy affected by the refactoring have not changed
significantly, so there are no significant problems in re-raising the
issue of merging the work back.
Pauli
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
