On 07/08/2014 5:40 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote:
> On Mi, 2014-08-06 at 14:05 -0700, Chris Barker wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate
>> on stacked vectors because they can't be identif
On Mi, 2014-08-06 at 14:05 -0700, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate
> on stacked vectors because they can't be identified by
> dimension info. One workaround is to
I don't expect stacked matrices/vectors to be used often, although there
are some areas that might make heavy use of them, so I think we could live
with the simple implementation, it's just a bit of a wart when there is
broadcasting of arrays. Just to be clear, the '@' broadcasting differs from
the
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, the '@' broadcasting differs from
> the dot broadcasting, agreed?
Right, np.dot does the equivalent of ufunc.outer (i.e., not
broadcasting at all), while @ broadcasts.
-n
--
Nathaniel J. Smith
Postdoctoral researcher
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2014 00:41, "Charles R Harris" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nathaniel
On 7 Aug 2014 00:41, "Charles R Harris" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Charles R Harr
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >> > Should also mention that we don't hav
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate on stacked
>> > vectors because they can't be id
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate on stacked
>> > vectors because they can't be
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate on stacked
> > vectors because they can't be identified by dimension info. One
> workaround
> > is to add dummy dim
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate on stacked
> vectors because they can't be identified by dimension info. One workaround
> is to add dummy dimensions where needed, another is to add two flags, row
> and col, and
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> Should also mention that we don't have the ability to
>> operate on stacked vectors because they can't be
>> identified by dimension info. One
>> workaround is to add dummy dimensions where needed,
>> another is to add two flags, row and
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate on stacked
> vectors because they can't be identified by dimension info. One workaround
> is to add dummy dimensions where needed, another is to add two flags, row
> and col, an
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río <
> jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I think the other obvious strategy to consider, is defining a 'dot'
>>> gufu
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río <
jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> I think the other obvious strategy to consider, is defining a 'dot'
>> gufunc, with semantics identical to @. (This would be useful for
>> backcompa
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> I think the other obvious strategy to consider, is defining a 'dot'
> gufunc, with semantics identical to @. (This would be useful for
> backcompat as well: adding/dropping compatibility with older python
> versions would be as simple as me
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've been looking to implement the "@" operator from Python 3.5. Looking at
> the current implementation of the dot function, it only uses a vector inner
> product, which is either that defined in arraytypes.c.src or a version u
Hi All,
I've been looking to implement the "@" operator from Python 3.5. Looking at
the current implementation of the dot function, it only uses a vector inner
product, which is either that defined in arraytypes.c.src or a version
using cblas defined in _dotblas for the float, cfloat, double, cdou
18 matches
Mail list logo
