On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if this constitutes major opposition, but is keeping
the same C-API for NumPy 1.2 unchanged still a possibility? Please?
Sorry I haven't commented on this yet; I have been busy and am still
thinking about the issue.
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in
1.2.
It does not make
Charles R Harris wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Travis E. Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Charles R Harris wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/8/17 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have nothing against extensions when they can be made to serve. If a
dictionary gets added to ndarrays I hope it is done that way, likewise for
generalized ufuncs. In the present case I think Travis wants to preserve the
functionality while
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have nothing against extensions when they can be made to serve. If a
dictionary gets added to ndarrays I hope it is done that way, likewise for
generalized ufuncs.
But that's a totally different matter. You can
David Cournapeau wrote:
Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
during the 1.* cycle ?
Jon Wright wrote:
Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for
this change? If it only means everyone recompiles, it is hard to see
what we, as users,
Travis, Stéfan,
I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that
all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/etc users are going to have to make a
co-ordinated upgrade, then this seems to be a grave mistake. Does
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Travis, Stéfan,
I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that
all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/etc users are going to have to make a
Robert Kern wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Travis, Stéfan,
I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that
all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/etc users are
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Travis, Stéfan,
I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean
Jon Wright wrote:
Travis, Stéfan,
I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled?
Re-compilation is necessary at some point. We have not required
recompilation for a long time now.Yes, it is a pain for
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Travis E. Oliphant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re-compilation is necessary at some point. We have not required
recompilation for a long time now.Yes, it is a pain for
distribution, but those who don't want to re-compile can point people to
1.1.1 which will
David Cournapeau wrote:
Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
during the 1.* cycle ?
Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for
this change? If it only means everyone recompiles, it is hard to see
what we, as users, are gaining by
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
during the 1.* cycle ?
Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for
this change? If it only means
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
during the 1.* cycle ?
Can someone help me to
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
Does that mean we will continue
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turns out that ipython needs to be recompiled also because of the newly
added version checking.
I'm sorry, can you clarify this? ipython has no C code at all, so I'm
not sure what you mean here.
Cheers,
f
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turns out that ipython needs to be recompiled also because of the newly
added version checking.
I'm sorry, can you clarify this? ipython
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Jon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
during the 1.* cycle ?
Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for
this change? If it only means
Robert Kern wrote:
FWIW, neither PIL nor PyOpenGL have C code which uses numpy arrays, so
they are entirely unaffected.
OK, so here are some projects which might notice a 1.2 installation, in
as much as they turn up on a google code search for:
#include numpy/arrayobject.h -scipy
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Try to look 12 months into the future and ask yourselves if it was
really a good idea to break the ABI.
I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in
1.2. And maybe not in 1.3 either,
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in
1.2.
It does not make sense to revert those changes anymore, but we keep
having those discussions, and I still don't understand whether there
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in
1.2.
It does not make sense to revert those changes anymore,
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 1.2 version of NumPy is going to be tagged. There is at least one
change I'd like to add: The hasobject member of the PyArray_Descr
structure should be renamed to flags and converted to a 32-bit
integer.
What
Hi all,
The 1.2 version of NumPy is going to be tagged. There is at least one
change I'd like to add: The hasobject member of the PyArray_Descr
structure should be renamed to flags and converted to a 32-bit
integer.
What does everybody think about this change? It should have minimal
27 matches
Mail list logo
