[Numpy-discussion] Scipy dot
nouiz at nouiz.org
Thu Nov 8 12:42:47 EST 2012
I also think it should go into numpy.dot and that the output order should
not be changed.
A new point, what about the additional overhead for small ndarray? To
remove this, I would suggest to put this code into the C function that do
the actual work (at least, from memory it is a c function, not a python
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Anthony Scopatz <scopatz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:06 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> <d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no> wrote:
>> > On 11/08/2012 01:07 PM, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 11:28:21AM +0000, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> >>> I think everyone would be very happy to see numpy.dot modified to do
>> >>> this automatically. But adding a scipy.dot IMHO would be fixing things
>> >>> in the wrong place and just create extra confusion.
>> >> I am not sure I agree: numpy is often compiled without lapack support,
>> >> it is not necessary. On the other hand scipy is always compiled with
>> >> lapack. Thus this makes more sens in scipy.
>> > Well, numpy.dot already contains multiple fallback cases for when it is
>> > compiled with BLAS and not. So I'm +1 on just making this an improvement
>> > on numpy.dot. I don't think there's a time when you would not want to
>> > use this (provided the output order issue is fixed), and it doesn't make
>> > sense to not have old codes take advantage of the speed improvement.
>> Indeed, there is no reason not to make this available in NumPy.
>> Nicolas, can you prepare a patch for numpy ?
> +1, I agree, this should be a fix in numpy, not scipy.
> Be Well
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion