> Travis E. Oliphant wrote: > > >>Yes, this was the reason for my dtype object. But, I think that folks >>felt it was too much, especially since the struct-style syntax is >>already there in Python. > > > Making it a full-blown Python object would be too much > for this application. But it could be something like an > array of structs containing a type code and a size. >
Another thing going in the struct-syntax's favor is that it seems to be accepted by a wide number of Python devs. But, I'm open to anything that contains the same level of expressiveness. >>you are also not describing how allocation for >>this array of structs will be handled. > > > That's up to the base object. Something with a fixed > number of dimensions (as I expect most objects implementing > this protocol will) can store it in the object itself. > If the number of dimensions can vary, it might have to > malloc/realloc. But that doesn't seem like a difficult > thing to do. I see better now. The objects themselves would store the dimensions (either directly as part of the object), or in some extension-module-maintained memory (that is used as a buffer to copy into everytime it is needed). That is fine by me. I suppose the format-string could be managed the same way --- it's up to the type object implementing the interface to manage it. -Travis _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
