On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Gary Robinson <gary...@me.com> wrote: >> I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have another poll, this time >> clearly differentiating between >> >> a) focusing on integrating the existing numpy in such a way that >> scipy and other such packages are also enabled, probably using >> the existing project to provide a C interface that IronPython and >> other Python variants can use; or >> >> b) the current path of replacing much of numpy, making it much >> faster but leaving scipy out in the cold for quite some time. >> >> I don't think it's clear, at this point, which approach would generate >> more monetary contributions. I suspect it might be (a) because of >> commercial scientific research that depends on scipy. Of course, >> if the path decision is already firm, then such a poll would be moot. >> > > It's however clear which approach is harder and more painful. I for > one don't subscribe for emulating all the subtleties of CPython C API > nor numpy API.
If you do that, you are not porting numpy, and the current code-name of micronumpy is quite appropriate ;) I would be much more interested in (a), since as I understand it (b) would only cater to libraries using just numpy's python interface (and even there PyPy still has a lot of work to do). Peter _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
