On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chuck,
>>
>> Like Sebastian, I wonder a little about what level you are talking
>> about. Presumably, it is the actual implementation of the ufunc? I.e.,
>> this
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Like Sebastian, I wonder a little about what level you are talking
> about. Presumably, it is the actual implementation of the ufunc? I.e.,
> this is not about the upper logic that decides whi
Hi Chuck,
Like Sebastian, I wonder a little about what level you are talking
about. Presumably, it is the actual implementation of the ufunc? I.e.,
this is not about the upper logic that decides which `__array_ufunc__`
to call, etc.
If so, I agree with you that it would seem to make most sense to
On Sun, 2017-05-28 at 14:53 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Hi All,
> This post is to open a discussion of the future of ufuncs. There are
> two contradictory ideas that have floated about regarding ufuncs
> evolution. One is to generalize ufuncs to operate on buffers,
> essentially separating the
Hi All,
This post is to open a discussion of the future of ufuncs. There are two
contradictory ideas that have floated about regarding ufuncs evolution. One
is to generalize ufuncs to operate on buffers, essentially separating them
from their current entanglement with ndarrays. The other is to acc
