Travis can better speak to specific use cases, but one example where this might be useful is an "in place" ufunc, or a ufunc operand that's broadcasted and can hold a reduce value.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:18 PM, jay bourque <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just added PR #359. The purpose is to allow the nditer object operand and > > iter flags to be set for a ufunc to provide better control over how an > array > > is iterated over by a ufunc and how the ufunc uses the operands passed to > > it. One specific motivation for this is to be able to specify an input > > operand to a ufunc as being read/write instead of read only. > > Huh. My first gut reaction to this is that it's an argument *against* > merging this change, because ufuncs *shouldn't* be writing to their > inputs. Maybe I'm wrong, but... obviously there is more context here > than we've heard so far. Can you explain what you're actually trying > to accomplish? > > -n > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
