On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 05:30:16PM -0800, David Goldsmith wrote:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, David Warde-Farley <dwf@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
On 23-Dec-09, at 2:19 PM, David Goldsmith wrote:
Thanks Anne (and Dave): it may seem to you to be "a bit silly to dream up an API without implementing anything," but I think it's useful to get these things "on the record" so to speak, and as a person charged with being especially concerned w/ the doc, it's particularly important for me to hear when its specific deficiencies are productivity blockers...
In fact, there are gufuncs in the tests that are quite instructive and would form the basis of good documentation, though not enough of them to give a complete picture of what the generalized ufunc architecture can do (I remember looking for an example of a particular supported pattern and coming up short,
If you came up short, how/why are you certain that the existing arch would support it?
The existing documentation made the capabilities of generalized ufuncs pretty clear, however not much is demonstrated in terms of the appropriate C API (or code generator) constructs. David