[Numpy-discussion] Is this a bug?

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris at gmail.com
Wed Sep 17 16:27:30 EDT 2014

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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.

Or we could add a new function,  PyUFunc_StrictGeneralizedFunction, with
the new behavior. that might be the safe way to go.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20140917/dc2fc9d1/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list