[Numpy-discussion] Generalized ufuncs?
Charles R Harris
Thu Aug 14 23:05:58 CDT 2008
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 22:45, Charles R Harris
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Stefan,
> > I notice that you have merged some new ufunc infrastructure. I think
> > sort of things should be discussed and reviewed on the list before being
> > committed. Could you explain what the purpose of these patches is? The
> > commit messages are rather skimpy.
> Stéfan happens to be in our offices this week, so he did discuss it
> with Travis, at least. This was actually contributed to us with
> extensive details from Wenjie Fu and Hans-Andreas Engel here:
Can we fix the ticket notification mailings some day? It's been almost four
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion