[Numpy-discussion] Changes to the generalized functions.
Charles R Harris
charlesr.harris at gmail.com
Tue Sep 23 18:59:46 EDT 2014
The question has come up as the whether of not to treat the new gufunc
behavior as a bug fix, keeping the old constructor name, or have a
different constructor. Keeping the name makes life easier as we don't need
to edit the code where numpy currently uses gufuncs, but is risky if some
third party depends on the old behavior. The gufuncs have been part of
numpy since the 1.3 release, and google doesn't turn up any uses that I can
see apart from repeats of numpy code. We can also make fixes if needed
during the 1.10 beta release cycle. Even so, it is a bit of a risk. To
spread the blame, if any, please weigh in on the following.
1. Yes, it is a bug, keep the current name and fix the behavior.
2. No, we need to be conservative and use a new function.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion