On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:06 AM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: > > On 11/08/2012 01:07 PM, Gael Varoquaux wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 11:28:21AM +0000, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >>> I think everyone would be very happy to see numpy.dot modified to do > >>> this automatically. But adding a scipy.dot IMHO would be fixing things > >>> in the wrong place and just create extra confusion. > >> > >> I am not sure I agree: numpy is often compiled without lapack support, > as > >> it is not necessary. On the other hand scipy is always compiled with > >> lapack. Thus this makes more sens in scipy. > > > > Well, numpy.dot already contains multiple fallback cases for when it is > > compiled with BLAS and not. So I'm +1 on just making this an improvement > > on numpy.dot. I don't think there's a time when you would not want to > > use this (provided the output order issue is fixed), and it doesn't make > > sense to not have old codes take advantage of the speed improvement. > > Indeed, there is no reason not to make this available in NumPy. > > Nicolas, can you prepare a patch for numpy ? > +1, I agree, this should be a fix in numpy, not scipy. Be Well Anthony > > David > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
