Re: [Numpy-discussion] Starting work on ufunc rewrite

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Irwin Zaid wrote: > Hey guys, > > I figured I'd just chime in here. > > Over in DyND-town, we've spent a lot of time figuring out how to structure > DyND callables, which are actually more general than NumPy gufuncs. We've > just recently got

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Starting work on ufunc rewrite

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Jaime Fernández del Río wrote: > I have started discussing with Nathaniel the implementation of the ufunc ABI > break that he proposed in a draft NEP a few months ago: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/61270 > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Starting work on ufunc rewrite

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz < jfoxrabinov...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is certainly good precedent for the approach you suggest. > Shortly after Nathaniel mentioned the rewrite to me, I looked up > d-pointers as a possible technique: https://wiki.qt.io/D-Pointer. >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Starting work on ufunc rewrite

Hey guys, I figured I'd just chime in here. Over in DyND-town, we've spent a lot of time figuring out how to structure DyND callables, which are actually more general than NumPy gufuncs. We've just recently got them to a place where we are very happy, and are able to represent a wide range of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Starting work on ufunc rewrite

There is certainly good precedent for the approach you suggest. Shortly after Nathaniel mentioned the rewrite to me, I looked up d-pointers as a possible technique: https://wiki.qt.io/D-Pointer. If we allow arbitrary kwargs for the new functions, is that something you would want to note in the