On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Julian Taylor <jtaylor.deb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > As the functions of the different libraries have vastly different > accuracies you want to be able to exchange numeric ops at runtime or at > least during load time (like our cblas) and not limit yourself one > compile time defined set of functions. > Keeping set_numeric_ops would be preferable to me. > > Though I am not clear on why the two things are connected? > Why can't we keep set_numeric_ops and merge multiarray and umath into > one shared object?
I think I addressed both of these topics here? https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2018-March/077777.html Looking again now, I see that we actually *do* have an explicit API for monkeypatching ufuncs: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/c-api.ufunc.html#c.PyUFunc_ReplaceLoopBySignature So this seems to be a strictly more general/powerful/useful version of set_numeric_ops... I added some discussion to the NEP: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10704/commits/4c4716ee0b3bc51d5be9baa891d60473f480d1f2 -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
