On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Alan McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Anne Archibald
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One noticeable absence is all the ufuncs. (Partly this is because it's
> > not actually called "out", or on fact anything at all; it's just t
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Anne Archibald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One noticeable absence is all the ufuncs. (Partly this is because it's
> not actually called "out", or on fact anything at all; it's just the
> last parameter if there are enough.) You might also check things like
> object
2008/5/28 Alan McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Charles R Harris >> I wonder if this
> is something that ought to be looked at for all
>>> functions with an "out" parameter? ndarray.compress also had problems
>>> with array type mismatch (#789); I can't imagine that
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Charles R Harris >> I wonder if this
is something that ought to be looked at for all
>> functions with an "out" parameter? ndarray.compress also had problems
>> with array type mismatch (#789); I can't imagine that it's safe to
>> assume only these two functions we
