Hi Ralf,
Thanks for the clarification. I think in your terms the bottom line was
that I thought we had a design B for the case where a function was really
"just a ufunc". But the nanfunctions show that even if logically they are a
ufunc (which admittedly uses another ufunc or two for `where`), it
On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 19:09 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> With the 1.17 branch coming soon, this might be a good time to make
> plans about 1.18 development. A couple of possibilities are:
>
> Expiring old deprecations,
Good plan.
> Removing Python 2.7 compatibility code,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:21 AM Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
> Thanks both for the reply and sharing the link. I recognize much (from
> both sides!).
>
>
>
>>
>> More importantly, I think we should not even consider *discussing*
>> removing`
