On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Peter Creasey <p.e.creasey...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > 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.
Ideally, none, because when that happens we frown and shake our fingers until they split them up :-). -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
