On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jaime Fernández del Río <
jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The question has come up as the whether of not to treat the new gufunc
>> behavior as a bug fix, keeping the old constructor na
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> 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
Hi All,
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
thi
