On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 12:37:24 PM UTC-5, Tim Holy wrote: > > For running mean, cumsum gives you an easy approach, if you don't mind a > little floating-point error.
Yikes, just noticed that cumsum is significantly less accurate than sum; basically, cumsum is no better than naive summation, whereas the intention was to get pairwise-summation accuracy. This is fixed in #9650
