Hi Chuck, others,
A propos __numpy_ufunc__, what is the current status? Is it still the
undetermined result of the monster-thread (
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/5844 -- just found it again by
sorting by number of comments...)?
As noted by Stephan and myself when the decision was made to
I'll echo Marten's sentiments. I've found __numpy_ufunc__ as it exists in
the master branch to be quite useful in my experiments with sparse arrays (
https://github.com/perimosocordiae/sparray), and I think it'll be a net
benefit to scipy.sparse as well (despite the unpleasantness with __mul__).
-
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, CJ Carey wrote:
> I'll echo Marten's sentiments. I've found __numpy_ufunc__ as it exists in
> the master branch to be quite useful in my experiments with sparse arrays (
> https://github.com/perimosocordiae/sparray), and I think it'll be a net
> benefit to scipy.sp
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk
wrote:
> Hi Chuck, others,
>
> A propos __numpy_ufunc__, what is the current status? Is it still the
> undetermined result of the monster-thread
> (https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/5844 -- just found it again by
> sorting by number of commen
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> The failed tests require pyrex, fortran, and swig. The refcount error
> comes and goes, probably the test isn't very good. Ralf, is there any
> reason to keep the various extension building tests? They are very old.
>
There are f2py t
