[sorry for duplicate - I used the wrong mail address] I am afraid, I didn't quite get the question. What is the scenario? What is the benefit that would weight out the performance hit of checking whether there is a callback or not. This has to be evaluated quite a lot. Oh well ... and 1.3.0 is pretty old :-) cheers, Samuel On 31.12.2011, at 07:48, Val Kalatsky wrote:
Hi folks,
First post, may not follow the standards, please bear with me.
Need to define a ufunc that takes care of various type. Fixed - no problem, userdef - no problem, flexible - problem. It appears that the standard ufunc loop does not provide means to deliver the size of variable size items. Questions and suggestions:
1) Please no laughing: I have to code for NumPy 1.3.0. Perhaps this issue has been resolved, then the discussion becomes moot. If so please direct me to the right link.
2) A reasonable approach here would be to use callbacks and to give the user (read programmer) a chance to intervene at least twice: OnInit and OnFail (OnFinish may not be unreasonable as well).
OnInit: before starting the type resolution the user is given a chance to do something (e.g. check for that pesky type and take control then return a flag indicating a stop) before the resolution starts OnFail: the resolution took place and did not succeed, the user is given a chance to fix it. In most of the case these callbacks are NULLs.
I could patch numpy with a generic method that does it, but it's a shame not to use the good ufunc machine.
Thanks for tips and suggestions.
Val Kalatsky
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion