On 29 October 2011 18:59, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:44 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 29 October 2011 18:05, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:41 AM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
Hm ok I'll disable them then. Pointers and some other dtypes a
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:44 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 29 October 2011 18:05, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:41 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> Hm ok I'll disable them then. Pointers and some other dtypes are also
>>> not supported yet. As for the documentation, ha
On 29 October 2011 18:47, mark florisson wrote:
> On 29 October 2011 18:44, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 29 October 2011 18:05, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:41 AM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
Hm ok I'll disable them then. Pointers and some other dtypes are also
>>>
On 29 October 2011 18:44, mark florisson wrote:
> On 29 October 2011 18:05, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:41 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> Hm ok I'll disable them then. Pointers and some other dtypes are also
>>> not supported yet. As for the documentation, have you g
On 29 October 2011 18:05, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:41 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> Hm ok I'll disable them then. Pointers and some other dtypes are also
>> not supported yet. As for the documentation, have you guys reviewed
>> the documentation for fused types and memo
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:41 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> Hm ok I'll disable them then. Pointers and some other dtypes are also
> not supported yet. As for the documentation, have you guys reviewed
> the documentation for fused types and memoryviews?
I looked at the fused types docs.
> For instan
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 28.10.2011 22:59:
>>
>> On 28 October 2011 21:55, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> With Mark's fused types and memory views going in, I think it's about
>>> time for a new release.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>> Thoughts?
>
> I still haven
2011/10/29 Stefan Behnel :
> mark florisson, 28.10.2011 22:59:
>>
>> On 28 October 2011 21:55, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> With Mark's fused types and memory views going in, I think it's about
>>> time for a new release.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>> Thoughts?
>
> I still haven't investigated the decorato
mark florisson, 29.10.2011 17:03:
On 29 October 2011 15:50, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 28.10.2011 22:59:
On 28 October 2011 21:55, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
With Mark's fused types and memory views going in, I think it's about
time for a new release.
I still haven't investigated the
It seems that, most ironically, OpenMP "isn't defined" to be called
from multithreaded contexts. It seems that even if I use prange only
in another thread that isn't the main thread the program segfaults if
compiled with gcc. That's kind of worrying, I suppose we should
mention that in the document
On 29 October 2011 15:50, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 28.10.2011 22:59:
>>
>> On 28 October 2011 21:55, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> With Mark's fused types and memory views going in, I think it's about
>>> time for a new release.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>> Thoughts?
>
> I still haven't inve
On 29 October 2011 15:50, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2011 4:41 AM, "mark florisson" wrote:
>> "
>> Typed memoryviews can be used for efficient access to buffers. It is
>> similar to the current buffer support, but has more features and
>> cleaner syntax. A memoryview can be used in any c
mark florisson, 28.10.2011 22:59:
On 28 October 2011 21:55, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
With Mark's fused types and memory views going in, I think it's about
time for a new release.
Agreed.
Thoughts?
I still haven't investigated the decorator issue that appeared in the Sage
tests. I think it'
On Oct 29, 2011 4:41 AM, "mark florisson" wrote:
> "
> Typed memoryviews can be used for efficient access to buffers. It is
> similar to the current buffer support, but has more features and
> cleaner syntax. A memoryview can be used in any context (function
> parameters, module-level, cdef class
Heh, that's a +1 :)
This makes me wonder, should we organize soms polls to have users vote
on what functionality they would like to see in Cython? Some users may
read the cython-dev mailing list, but many might also not. E.g.
provide a poll where we list some things that we would like to see,
and
On the contrary, this is an excellent idea!
El 29/10/2011 15:14, "mark florisson" va
escriure:
> Before we do a release, would anyone be opposed to a 'chunksize'
> keyword argument to prange()? That may have significant performance
> impacts.
>
> On 29 October 2011 12:41, mark florisson
> wrote:
Before we do a release, would anyone be opposed to a 'chunksize'
keyword argument to prange()? That may have significant performance
impacts.
On 29 October 2011 12:41, mark florisson wrote:
> Hm ok I'll disable them then. Pointers and some other dtypes are also
> not supported yet. As for the doc
Hm ok I'll disable them then. Pointers and some other dtypes are also
not supported yet. As for the documentation, have you guys reviewed
the documentation for fused types and memoryviews? For instance this
is the introduction for memoryviews:
"
Typed memoryviews can be used for efficient access t
Re b), it would be better to disable object dtypes (or emit a warning about the
possible bug when using them) than to delay the release. Object memoryviews are
rare in the first place, and those who contain themselves should be very rare.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excus
19 matches
Mail list logo
