Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Hardware Locality Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] python bindings
From: Samuel Thibault (samuel.thibault_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-21 11:14:53

Guy Streeter, le Thu 20 Jan 2011 20:57:24 +0100, a écrit :
> I added some iterators:
> bitmap.all_set_bits
> obj.infos
> topology.objs_by_depth
> topology.objs_by_type
> I also made obj.children an iterator.
> I think I could do the same with siblings and cousins if that makes sense.

I think it makes sense.

> I implemented bitmap.bitmap_weight() as a method, but also bitmap.weight as
> a property.

Ah, I hadn't catched that: just like for the hwloc_ prefix, isn't
the bitmap_ prefix redundant?

I wouldn't set weight as a property, because people will tend to think
that it's a cheap operation, while it's not.

> Also bitmap.bitmap_first() and bitmap.first, etc.

ditto :)

> Instead of the bitmap isequal, or, and, xor, and not methods, I supported
> the operators ==, != |, |=, &, &=, ^. ^=, and ~.

That's just nice sugar, no problem with that :)

> A new topology instance gets init() automatically, and is destroyed
> when it goes away, so those methods are not exposed.

That's probably what we want, yes. Bernd, I believe perl should do the

I'm wondering whether we should perhaps put an equivalence chart
somewhere, to make sure things are coherent between C, python, perl, and
any other future bindings.