On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:44 AM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
related: is there any advantage to np.add.reduce?
I find it more difficult to read than sum() and still see it used sometimes.
I think ``np.add.reduce`` just falls out of the ufunc
implementation--there's no per ufunc choice to
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Compare:
gu_dot_leftwards(ones((10, 11, 4)), ones((11, 12, 3, 4))) - (10, 12, 3, 4)
versus
gu_dot_rightwards(ones((4, 10, 11)), ones((3, 4, 11, 12))) - (3, 4, 10, 12)
The second makes quite a bit more sense to me, and
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
It is so difficult because of the fact that dot is basically a
combination of many functions:
o vector * vector - vector
o vector * matrix - matrix (add dimensions to vector on right)
o matrix * vector -
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
3) Extend the gufunc machinery to understand the idea that some core
dimensions are allowed to take on a special nonexistent size. So the
signature for dot would be:
(m*,k) x (k, n*) - (m*, n*)
where '*' denotes
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:31 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
It is so difficult because of the fact that dot is basically a
combination of many functions:
o vector * vector - vector
o vector * matrix -
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:14 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
snip
What I mean is: Suppose we wrote a gufunc for 'sum', where the
intrinsic
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
snip
So:
QUESTION 1: does that sound right: that in a perfect world, the
current gufunc convention would be the only one, and that's what we
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:14 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
snip
So:
QUESTION 1: does that sound right: that in a perfect world, the
current gufunc convention would be the only one, and that's what we
should work towards, at least in the cases where that's possible?
Sounds
