On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:42 PM Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having done that, I felt the examples actually justified the frozen > dimensions quite well. Given that you're the who expressed most doubts > about them, could you have a look? Ideally, I'd avoid having to write a NEP > for this, and the examples do seem to make it quite obvious that this > change to the signature is the way to go, as its meaning is dead obvious. > And the implementation is super-straightforward... > I do think it would be valuable to have a brief NEP on this, especially on the solution for matmul. NEPs don't have to be long, and don't need to go into the full detail of implementations. But they are a nice place to summarize design discussions. In fact, I would say the text you have below is nearly enough for one or two NEPs. The parts that are missing would be valuable to add anyways: - A brief discussion (a sentence or two) of potential broader use-cases for optional dimensions (ufuncs that act on row/column vectors and matrices). - A brief discussion of rejected alternatives (only a few sentences for each alternative).
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
