On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 08:58 +0100, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 01/05/2013 10:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On 5 Jan 2013 12:16, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Following on from Nathaniel's explorations of the scalar - array
casting rules, some resources on rank-0
On 6 Jan 2013 07:59, Dag Sverre Seljebotn d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no
wrote:
Try to enumerate all the fundamentally different things (if you count
memory use/running time) that can happen for ndarrays a, b, and
arbitrary x here:
a += b[x]
That's already quite a lot, your proposal adds even
On 01/06/2013 10:41 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 08:58 +0100, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 01/05/2013 10:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On 5 Jan 2013 12:16, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Following on from Nathaniel's explorations of the scalar - array
On 01/06/2013 11:16 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On 6 Jan 2013 07:59, Dag Sverre Seljebotn d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no
mailto:d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
Try to enumerate all the fundamentally different things (if you count
memory use/running time) that can happen for ndarrays a, b, and
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
I should have been more precise: I like the proposal, but also believe
the additional complexity introduced have significant costs that must be
considered.
a) Making += behave differently for readonly
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On 5 Jan 2013 12:16, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Following on from Nathaniel's explorations of the scalar - array
casting rules, some resources on rank-0 arrays.
The discussion that Nathaniel
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On 5 Jan 2013 12:16, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Following on from Nathaniel's explorations of the scalar -
On 01/06/2013 05:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
I should have been more precise: I like the proposal, but also believe
the additional complexity introduced have significant costs that must be
considered.
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Following on from Nathaniel's explorations of the scalar - array
casting rules, some resources on rank-0 arrays.
The discussion that Nathaniel tracked down on rank-0 arrays; it also
makes reference to
On 5 Jan 2013 12:16, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Following on from Nathaniel's explorations of the scalar - array
casting rules, some resources on rank-0 arrays.
The discussion that Nathaniel tracked down on rank-0 arrays; it also
makes reference to casting. The
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On 5 Jan 2013 12:16, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Following on from Nathaniel's explorations of the scalar - array
casting rules, some resources on rank-0 arrays.
The discussion that Nathaniel tracked
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:10 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the entertaining explanation.
Procrastination is a hell of a drug.
I don't think 0-dim array being slow is such a big drawback. I would
be really surprised if there was no way to make them faster, and
On 01/05/2013 10:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On 5 Jan 2013 12:16, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Following on from Nathaniel's explorations of the scalar - array
casting rules, some resources on rank-0 arrays.
The discussion that Nathaniel tracked down on rank-0 arrays;
13 matches
Mail list logo
