[Numpy-discussion] ufunc oddities
Sun May 25 12:30:08 CDT 2008
2008/5/25 Charles R Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> So, please tell me how numpy is supposed to work. Write as much as you
> please. If you are so moved, why not write the tests for all 64 ufuncs for
> all types and combinations and verify that they are all correct as specified
> and raise errors when they should.
This sounds like something that will be easier with nose (if I
understand nose correctly). Since the ufuncs are so uniform, it seems
like the zillion tests you are proposing writing should be expressed
as a list of ufuncs with some type annotations, a list of types to run
them against, and a programmatic expression of the type rules Robert
is proposing. While you can do this with the current test framework,
you get one test rather than many, and the failure report is not
nearly so valuable.
More information about the Numpy-discussion