On Sat, 2023-12-23 at 09:56 -0500, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> > That looks nice, I don't have a clear feeling on the order of
> > items, if
> > we think of it in terms of `(start, stop)` there was also the idea
> > voiced to simply add another name in which case you would
On Sat, 2023-12-23 at 09:56 -0500, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> > That looks nice, I don't have a clear feeling on the order of
> > items, if
> > we think of it in terms of `(start, stop)` there was also the idea
> > voiced to simply add another name in which case you would
Hi Sebastian,
> That looks nice, I don't have a clear feeling on the order of items, if
> we think of it in terms of `(start, stop)` there was also the idea
> voiced to simply add another name in which case you would allow start
> and stop to be separate arrays.
Yes, one could add another
On Fri, 2023-12-22 at 18:01 -0500, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I agree it is a long-standing issue, and I was reminded of it by your
> comment. I have a draft PR at
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/25476
> that does not change the old behaviour, but allows you to pass in a
Hi Martin,
I agree it is a long-standing issue, and I was reminded of it by your
comment. I have a draft PR at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/25476
that does not change the old behaviour, but allows you to pass in a
start-stop array which behaves more sensibly (exact API TBD).
Please have
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 12:34 PM Martin Ling wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I don't follow numpy development in much detail these days but I see
> that there is a 2.0 release planned soon.
>
> Would this be an opportunity to change the behaviour of 'reduceat'?
>
> This issue has been open in some form
