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.
Good answer - as soon as I hit 'send' I wondered how many bugs get introduced by people trying to attach feature requests to bug fixes. I will take a look at the code later and pm you if I get anywhere...
Peter
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:42 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.
Good answer - as soon as I hit 'send' I wondered how many bugs get introduced by people trying to attach feature requests to bug fixes.
Ideally, none, because when that happens we frown and shake our fingers until they split them up :-).
-n
-
Nathaniel Smith -
Peter Creasey