Re: [Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Nov 8, 2015 6:00 PM, "Eric Firing" wrote: >> > >> > I also prefer that there be a single convention: either the "out" kwarg >> > is the end of the every signature, or it

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Nov 8, 2015 6:00 PM, "Eric Firing" wrote: > > > > I also prefer that there be a single convention: either the "out" kwarg > is the end of the every signature, or it is the first kwarg in every > signature. It's a very special and unusu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

On Nov 8, 2015 6:00 PM, "Eric Firing" wrote: > > I also prefer that there be a single convention: either the "out" kwarg is the end of the every signature, or it is the first kwarg in every signature. It's a very special and unusual kwarg, so it should have a standard location. For all ufuncs, o

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

On 2015/11/08 3:46 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: Hi All, I'd like some feedback for the position of the `strict` and `out` arguments for masked arrays. See gh-6653 for the PR in question. Current status without #6652 1. ma.dot(a, b, strict=False) -- es

[Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

Hi All, I'd like some feedback for the position of the `strict` and `out` arguments for masked arrays. See gh-6653 for the PR in question. Current status without #6652 1. ma.dot(a, b, strict=False) -- established 2. a.dot(b, out=None) -- new in 1