Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] RFC: comments to BLAS committee from numpy/scipy devs

2018-01-09 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Tyler Reddy wrote: > One common issue in computational geometry is the need to operate rapidly on > arrays with "heterogeneous shapes." > > So, an array that has rows with different numbers of columns -- shape (1,3) > for the first

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] RFC: comments to BLAS committee from numpy/scipy devs

2018-01-09 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:40 AM, Ilhan Polat wrote: > I couldn't find an item to place this but I think ilaenv and also calling > the function twice (one with lwork=-1 and reading the optimal block size and > the call the function again properly with lwork=) in LAPACK needs

Re: [Numpy-discussion] array - dimension size of 1-D and 2-D examples

2018-01-09 Thread Sebastian Berg
On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 12:27 +, martin.gfel...@swisscom.com wrote: > Hi Derek > > I have a related question: > > Given: > > a = numpy.array([[0,1,2],[3,4]]) > assert a.ndim == 1 > b = numpy.array([[0,1,2],[3,4,5]]) > assert b.ndim == 2 > > Is there an elegant way to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] array - dimension size of 1-D and 2-D examples

2018-01-09 Thread Martin.Gfeller
Hi Derek I have a related question: Given: a = numpy.array([[0,1,2],[3,4]]) assert a.ndim == 1 b = numpy.array([[0,1,2],[3,4,5]]) assert b.ndim == 2 Is there an elegant way to force b to remain a 1-dim object array? I have a use case where normally the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] RFC: comments to BLAS committee from numpy/scipy devs

2018-01-09 Thread Ilhan Polat
I couldn't find an item to place this but I think ilaenv and also calling the function twice (one with lwork=-1 and reading the optimal block size and the call the function again properly with lwork=) in LAPACK needs to be gotten rid of. That's a major annoyance during the wrapping of LAPACK

[Numpy-discussion] RFC: comments to BLAS committee from numpy/scipy devs

2018-01-09 Thread Nathaniel Smith
Hi all, As mentioned earlier [1][2], there's work underway to revise and update the BLAS standard -- e.g. we might get support for strided arrays and lose xerbla! There's a draft at [3]. They're interested in feedback from users, so I've written up a first draft of comments about what we would