From: Achim G. <Ach...@un...> - 2001-11-27 08:19:05
|
Ok, there is a clear need for the facility of easy contribution. Please be patient until Friday, December 7th. Then I have time to let it = happen. It is right that the oficial site for this project is at pygsl.sourcefogr= ge.net (Brian Gough, can you change the link on the gsl homepage, thanks :-) ) But I will show some discussion points that must be clear before a cvs re= lease: - Is the file and directory structure fully expandable, can several perso= ns work parallel? - Should classes be created with excellent working objects or should it b= e a 1:1 wrapper? - should there be one interface dynamic library or more than one? - Is there an other way expect that of the GPL (personally prefered, but = other opinions should be discussed before the contribution of source) Some questions of minor weight: - Is the tuple return value for (value,error) ok in the sf module? - Test cases are needed These questions are the reason, why I do not simply "copy" my code into c= vs. Jochen K=FCpper wrote: >=20 > It only provides wrapper for the special functions, but more is to > come. (Hopefully Achim will put the cvs on sf soon.) >=20 > Yes, I agree, PyGSL should be fully integrated with Numpy2, but it > should probably also remain a separate project -- as Numpy should stay > a base layer for all kind of numerical stuff and hopefully make it > into core python at some point (my personal wish, no more, AFAICT!). >=20 > I think when PyGSL will fully go to SF (or anything similar) more > people would start contributing and we should have a fine general > numerical algorithms library for python soon! >=20 I agree with Jochen and I'd like to move to the core of Python too. But t= his is far away and I hate monolithic distributions. If there is the need to discuss seperately about PyGSL we can do that her= e or at the gsl-discuss list mailto:gsl...@so... . But there is= also the possibility of a mailinglist at pygsl.sourceforge.net . Please let me= know. |