>> > >> > Is the interp fix in the google pipeline or do we need a workaround? >> > >> >> Oooh, if someone is looking at changing interp, is there any chance >> that fp could be extended to take complex128 rather than just float >> values? I.e. so that I could write: >> >> >>> y = interp(mu, theta, m) >> rather than >> >>> y = interp(mu, theta, m.real) + 1.0j*interp(mu, theta, m.imag) >> >> which *sounds* like it might be simple and more (Num)pythonic. > > That sounds like an excellent improvement and you should submit a PR > implementing it :-). > > "The interp fix" in question though is a regression in 1.10 that's blocking > 1.10.2, and needs a quick minimal fix asap. >
Good answer - as soon as I hit 'send' I wondered how many bugs get introduced by people trying to attach feature requests to bug fixes. I will take a look at the code later and pm you if I get anywhere... Peter _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
