Hi,

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Nicholas Sauter <nksauter@lbl.gov> wrote:

It was always the intention to support flex arrays in the absence of Numpy. If there is some refactoring to be done, this principle should be preserved: that Numpy is an optional rather than required dependency.

Good to know - some of this code seems a little crusty (and I've found a couple of bugs just trying to verify that it still works correctly).

Not sure about the wording in your second sentence. At the time we developed flex, branching was not a code development mechanism we used. Furthermore, not sure why you say Numpy is "exclusively" used in the flex constructors? Certainly there are numerous flex constructors that do not involve Numpy?

I meant a code branch e.g. "if", or a preprocessor "#ifdef" in this case.

I think I've gotten confused by some of the indirection in the class definitions - the top level only adds the numpy constructor, and then everything else is put in several levels down - and in some of my tests it looked like the numpy routine was mistakenly doing all of the construction (which ended in much the same results).

Nick