On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> So it's off to look at the
> tickets and trying to fix bugs. Urrgh. Oh, and I suppose I should look into
> the argmax/argmin functions and see how they handle nans.
I think they don't at the moment: they have an implementation defined beh
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:10 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> That's strange - I redid the compilation this morning, and I now get
> the same results as you (modulo the function call - I forced the
> function call because that's how it would work in numpy), that is the
> return value is builtin at
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The macro is ugly, unneeded, and obfuscating. Why construct a number
>> > from
>> > characters an
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>
> >
> > The macro is ugly, unneeded, and obfuscating. Why construct a number from
> > characters and shifts when you can just *write it down*?
>
> The idea was to replace the 'AB
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> The macro is ugly, unneeded, and obfuscating. Why construct a number from
> characters and shifts when you can just *write it down*?
The idea was to replace the 'ABCD' multi-byte constant. If you think
that writing down the correspondin
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM, David Cournapeau
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM, David Cournapeau
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi David,
> >> >
> >> > Cur
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > Hi David,
>> >
>> > Currently,
>> >
>> > bint.i = __STR2INTCST("ABCD");
>> >
>> > It is probably more por
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Currently,
> >
> > bint.i = __STR2INTCST("ABCD");
> >
> > It is probably more portable to just initialize the union
> >
> > union {
> > char c[4];
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Currently,
>
> bint.i = __STR2INTCST("ABCD");
>
> It is probably more portable to just initialize the union
>
> union {
> char c[4];
> npy_uint32 i;
> } bint = {'A','B','C','D'};
>
Ah, tempting, right
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Currently,
>
> bint.i = __STR2INTCST("ABCD");
>
> It is probably more portable to just initialize the union
>
> union {
> char c[4];
> npy_uint32 i;
> } bint = {'A','B','C','D'};
>
>
> If you use const
Hi David,
Currently,
bint.i = __STR2INTCST("ABCD");
It is probably more portable to just initialize the union
union {
char c[4];
npy_uint32 i;
} bint = {'A','B','C','D'};
If you use const union the initialization will be done at compile time.
Chuck
___
12 matches
Mail list logo
