On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Lluís wrote:
> Darren Dale writes:
>
>> With generic functions, you wouldn't have to remember to use the ufunc
>> provided by masked array for one type, or the default numpy for
>> another type.
>
> Sorry, but I don't see how generic functions should be a better app
Darren Dale writes:
> With generic functions, you wouldn't have to remember to use the ufunc
> provided by masked array for one type, or the default numpy for
> another type.
Sorry, but I don't see how generic functions should be a better approach
compared to redefining methods on masked_array [1
On 02/04/2011 06:50 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I like the thoughts on core-architecture. These are all things that we
> were not able to do as part of the NumPy for .NET discussions, but with
> the right interested parties could be acted upon.
I will be at Pycon this year from 11th to 13th febru
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> Moving this to a new thread.
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Charles R
> Harris wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
[...]
>>> Yeah, I understand it's the result of organic growth and merging from
>>> many differen
I like the thoughts on core-architecture. These are all things that we were
not able to do as part of the NumPy for .NET discussions, but with the right
interested parties could be acted upon.
>
> I like the lower two levels if, as I assume, they are basically aimed at
> allocating, dealloc
Moving this to a new thread.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:09 PM, David wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/02/2011 02:57 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>
>>> > I think the error handling pol
