[Numpy-discussion] Generalized ufuncs?
Charles R Harris
Fri Aug 15 00:54:55 CDT 2008
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> Hi Charles
> 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.
> > 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
> > have been caught early in a code review. So I think in this case the
> > should have been discussed and reviewed on the list. An internal
> > 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
Numpy 1.2 is for documentation, bug fixes, and getting the new testing
framework in place. Discipline is called for if we are going to have timely
> done, report on the list.
Wrong way around.
> 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.
We is the numpy community, not you and Travis.
> 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.
Why not wait until after the release then?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion