[Numpy-discussion] Trying out Numeric3

[Travis Oliphant]

>Hi Travis.
>
>I'm curious if you find PEP-296 sufficient:
>
>    http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0296.html
>
>It is marked as "withdrawn by the author", but that is not really true.  A
>more accurate statement would be "the author spent his allotted time
>defending and revising the PEP on the Python mailing list and was not left
>with sufficient time to finish the implementation on his corporate dollar".
> :-)  It's a good PEP, and while my company uses Python quite extensively,
>after two weeks I had to get back to more direct goals...
>  
>

Great to hear from you Scott.  Yes, I looked at this PEP (though I 
haven't studied it sufficiently to say if it's perfect for our needs or 
not),  but it is very close. 

I did not know what "withdrawn by author" meant, thanks for 
clarifying.   How would somebody change the status of that and re-open 
the PEP?  I think it is a great place to start.

Also, numarray has a memory object implemented that is a good start on 
the implementation.  So, this wouldn't be a huge job at this point.

>Regardless, I think PEP-296 meets your needs (and several other groups in
>the Python community), and it might save someone the time recreating a new
>PEP from scratch.  More importantly, it might save someone some of the time
>required to defend and argue the PEP on the Python mailing list.  When the
>discussion cleared, Guido was very positive toward the PEP - I just never
>got it implemented...
>
>  
>
Good to hear.

>The "meta" attribute would be a small change.  It's possible to do that
>with composition or inheritance instead, but that's really a just matter of
>taste.
>  
>
I don't think I fully understand what you mean by "composition" --- like 
a mixin class?
or how inheritance solves the problem on a C-API level?

I'm mainly thinking of Extension modules that want to use each others' 
memory on a C-level.  That would be the main use of the meta information.

>When I wrote the PEP, I had high hopes of creating a Python only "ndarray"
>class out of bytes and the struct module, so it was definitely targeted at
>needs similar to what I believe yours to be.  Obviously you should do what
>is best for you, but I would be pleased if my wasted effort was revived and
> completed to actually be useful.
>  
>
Numarray essentially did this.   I think we still need a C-type object 
for arrays.

But, it's great to hear you still believe in the byte object.  I wasn't 
sure. 

-Travis