Re: [Numpy-discussion] broadcasting for randint

Just wanted to ping the mailing list again in case this email (see below) got lost in your inboxes. Would be great to get some feedback on this! Thanks! On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 2:15 AM, G Young wrote: > Hi, > > I have had a PR

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ENH: compute many inner products quickly

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Jaime Fernández del Río < jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since we are at it, should quadratic/bilinear forms get their own function > too? That is, after all, what the OP was asking for. > If we have matvecmul and vecmul, then how to implement bilinear forms

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ENH: compute many inner products quickly

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > If possible, I'd love to add new functions for "generalized ufunc" linear > algebra, and then deprecate (or at least discourage) using the older > versions with inferior broadcasting rules. Adding a new keyword arg means >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ENH: compute many inner products quickly

On Di, 2016-06-07 at 00:32 +0200, Jaime Fernández del Río wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Sebastian Berg s.net> wrote: > > On So, 2016-06-05 at 19:20 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Stephan Hoyer

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ENH: compute many inner products quickly

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On So, 2016-06-05 at 19:20 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Stephan Hoyer > > wrote: > > > If possible, I'd love to add new functions for "generalized

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ENH: compute many inner products quickly

There I was thinking vector-vector inner product was in fact covered by `np.inner`. Yikes, half inner, half outer. As for names, I think `matvecmul` and `vecmul` do seem quite OK (probably need `vecmatmul` as well, which does the same as `matmul` would for 1-D first argument). But as other

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Integers to integer powers, let's make a decision

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > I consider either proposal an improvement, but among the two I favour > returning float for `**`, because, like for `/`, it ensures one gets > closest to the (mathematically) true answer in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Integers to integer powers, let's make a decision

Hi Chuck, I consider either proposal an improvement, but among the two I favour returning float for `**`, because, like for `/`, it ensures one gets closest to the (mathematically) true answer in most cases, and makes duck-typing that much easier -- I'd like to be able to do x** y without having

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ENH: compute many inner products quickly

On So, 2016-06-05 at 19:20 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Stephan Hoyer > wrote: > > If possible, I'd love to add new functions for "generalized ufunc" > > linear algebra, and then deprecate (or at least discourage) using > > the older