[Numpy-discussion] LA improvements (was: dot function or dot notation, matrices, arrays?)
Wed Dec 23 20:59:25 CST 2009
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 05:30:16PM -0800, David Goldsmith wrote:
> 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?
The existing documentation made the capabilities of generalized ufuncs
pretty clear, however not much is demonstrated in terms of the appropriate
C API (or code generator) constructs.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion