Is the interp fix in the google pipeline or do we need a workaround?
Oooh, if someone is looking at changing interp, is there any chance that fp could be extended to take complex128 rather than just float values? I.e. so that I could write:
y = interp(mu, theta, m) rather than y = interp(mu, theta, m.real) + 1.0j*interp(mu, theta, m.imag)
which *sounds* like it might be simple and more (Num)pythonic. Peter
On Dec 6, 2015 6:03 PM, "Peter Creasey" <p.e.creasey.00@googlemail.com> wrote:
Is the interp fix in the google pipeline or do we need a workaround?
Oooh, if someone is looking at changing interp, is there any chance that fp could be extended to take complex128 rather than just float values? I.e. so that I could write:
y = interp(mu, theta, m) rather than y = interp(mu, theta, m.real) + 1.0j*interp(mu, theta, m.imag)
which *sounds* like it might be simple and more (Num)pythonic.
That sounds like an excellent improvement and you should submit a PR implementing it :-). "The interp fix" in question though is a regression in 1.10 that's blocking 1.10.2, and needs a quick minimal fix asap. -n
participants (2)
-
Nathaniel Smith -
Peter Creasey