[Numpy-discussion] Is this a bug?

[Charles R Harris]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Sebastian Berg <sebastian at sipsolutions.net>
wrote:

> On Mi, 2014-09-17 at 06:33 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > It would also be nice if the order could be made part of the signature
> > as DGEMM and friends like one of the argument axis to be contiguous,
> > but I don't see a clean way to do that. The gufuncs do have an order
> > parameter which should probably default to 'C'  if the arrays/vectors
> > are stacked. I think the default is currently 'K'. Hmm, we could make
> > 'K' refer to the last one or two dimensions in the inputs. OTOH, that
> > isn't needed for types not handled by BLAS. Or it could be handled in
> > the inner loops.
> >
>
> This is a different discussion, right? It would be nice to have an order
> flag for the core dimensions. The gufunc itself should not care at all
> about the outer ones.
>

Right. It is possible to check all these things in the loop, but the loop
code grows..
.

> All the orders for the core dimensions would be nice probably, including
> no contiguity being enforced (or actually, maybe we can define 'K' to
> mean that in this context). To be honest, if 'K' means that, it seems
> like a decent default.
>
>
With regards to the main topic, we could extend the signature notation,
using `[...]` instead of `(...)' for the new behavior.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20140917/4111a5a9/attachment.html>