[Numpy-discussion] Generalized ufuncs?
Stéfan van der Walt
Fri Aug 15 00:45:56 CDT 2008
2008/8/14 Charles R Harris <email@example.com>:
> Re: the patch. I noticed the replacement of the signed type int by an
> unsigned size_t. This is a risky sort of thing and needs to be checked. Nor
> is it clear we should use size_t instead of one of the python or numpy
> types. The use of inline and the local declaration of variables would also
> have been caught early in a code review. So I think in this case the patch
> should have been discussed and reviewed on the list. An internal discussion
> at Enthought doesn't serve the same purposel.
I apologise for not keeping the list up to date with the progress on
this front. The patch is such a great contribution that I wanted it
to become part of NumPy for 1.2b3. The idea was to merge it and, once
done, report on the list. As is, I am still busy fixing some bugs on
the Windows platform and integrating unit tests. I did, however, get
Travis to review the patch beforehand, and we will keep reviewing the
changes made until 1.2b3 goes out. The patch does not influence
current NumPy behaviour in any way -- it simply provides hooks for
general ufuncs, which can be implemented in the future.
Thanks for your concern,
More information about the Numpy-discussion