On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I've put up a preliminary PR for the proposed fpower ufunc. Apart from > > adding more tests and documentation, I'd like to settle a few other > things. > > The first is the name, two names have been proposed and we should settle > on > > one > > > > fpower (short) > > float_power (obvious) > > +0.6 for float_power > > > The second thing is the minimum precision. In the preliminary version I > have > > used float32, but perhaps it makes more sense for the intended use to > make > > the minimum precision float64 instead. > > Can you elaborate on what you're thinking? I guess this is because > float32 has limited range compared to float64, so is more likely to > see overflow? float32 still goes up to 10**38 which is < int64_max**2, > FWIW. Or maybe there's some subtlety with the int->float casting here? > logical, (u)int8, (u)int16, and float16 get converted to float32, which is probably sufficient to avoid overflow and such. My thought was that float32 is something of a "specialized" type these days, while float64 is the standard floating point precision for everyday computation. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
