On Dec 6, 2015 6:03 PM, "Peter Creasey" <p.e.creasey...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > Is the interp fix in the google pipeline or do we need a workaround? > > > > Oooh, if someone is looking at changing interp, is there any chance > that fp could be extended to take complex128 rather than just float > values? I.e. so that I could write: > > >>> y = interp(mu, theta, m) > rather than > >>> y = interp(mu, theta, m.real) + 1.0j*interp(mu, theta, m.imag) > > which *sounds* like it might be simple and more (Num)pythonic.
That sounds like an excellent improvement and you should submit a PR implementing it :-). "The interp fix" in question though is a regression in 1.10 that's blocking 1.10.2, and needs a quick minimal fix asap. -n
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
