Hi, On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: > 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.
Thanks for making a new thread. Who knows this work best? Who do you think should join the discussion to plan the work? I might have some time for this - maybe a sprint would be in order, Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
