On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, David Warde-Farley <d...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote: > > On 23-Dec-09, at 2:19 PM, David Goldsmith wrote: > >> Thanks Anne (and Dave): it may seem to you to be "a bit silly to dream >> up an API without implementing anything," but I think it's useful to >> get these things "on the record" so to speak, and as a person charged >> with being especially concerned w/ the doc, it's particularly >> important for me to hear when its specific deficiencies are >> productivity blockers... > > In fact, there are gufuncs in the tests that are quite instructive and > would form the basis of good documentation, though not enough of them > to give a complete picture of what the generalized ufunc architecture > can do (I remember looking for an example of a particular supported > pattern and coming up short,
If you came up short, how/why are you certain that the existing arch would support it? > though I can't for the life of me > remember which). > > The existing documentation, plus source code from the umath_tests > module marked up descriptively (what all the parameters do, especially > the ones which currently receive magic numbers) would probably be the > way to go down the road. > > David Perfect, David! Thanks... DG _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
