[Numpy-discussion] LA improvements (was: dot function or dot notation, matrices, arrays?)
Wed Dec 23 19:30:16 CST 2009
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, David Warde-Farley <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 23-Dec-09, at 2:19 PM, David Goldsmith wrote:
>> Thanks Anne (and Dave): it may seem to you to be "a bit silly to dream
>> up an API without implementing anything," but I think it's useful to
>> get these things "on the record" so to speak, and as a person charged
>> with being especially concerned w/ the doc, it's particularly
>> important for me to hear when its specific deficiencies are
>> productivity blockers...
> In fact, there are gufuncs in the tests that are quite instructive and
> would form the basis of good documentation, though not enough of them
> to give a complete picture of what the generalized ufunc architecture
> can do (I remember looking for an example of a particular supported
> pattern and coming up short,
If you came up short, how/why are you certain that the existing arch
would support it?
> though I can't for the life of me
> remember which).
> The existing documentation, plus source code from the umath_tests
> module marked up descriptively (what all the parameters do, especially
> the ones which currently receive magic numbers) would probably be the
> way to go down the road.
Perfect, David! Thanks...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion