On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:44 AM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
related: is there any advantage to np.add.reduce?
I find it more difficult to read than sum() and still see it used sometimes.
I think ``np.add.reduce`` just falls out of the ufunc
implementation--there's no per ufunc choice to
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Compare:
gu_dot_leftwards(ones((10, 11, 4)), ones((11, 12, 3, 4))) - (10, 12, 3, 4)
versus
gu_dot_rightwards(ones((4, 10, 11)), ones((3, 4, 11, 12))) - (3, 4, 10, 12)
The second makes quite a bit more sense to me, and
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
It is so difficult because of the fact that dot is basically a
combination of many functions:
o vector * vector - vector
o vector * matrix - matrix (add dimensions to vector on right)
o matrix * vector -
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
3) Extend the gufunc machinery to understand the idea that some core
dimensions are allowed to take on a special nonexistent size. So the
signature for dot would be:
(m*,k) x (k, n*) - (m*, n*)
where '*' denotes
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:31 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
It is so difficult because of the fact that dot is basically a
combination of many functions:
o vector * vector - vector
o vector * matrix -
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:14 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
snip
What I mean is: Suppose we wrote a gufunc for 'sum', where the
intrinsic
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
snip
So:
QUESTION 1: does that sound right: that in a perfect world, the
current gufunc convention would be the only one, and that's what we
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:14 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
Hi all,
I hadn't realized until Pauli just pointed it out that np.dot and the
new gufuncs actually have different rules for how they handle extra
axes:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/3524#issuecomment-21117601
This is turning into a big mess, and it may take some hard decisions to fix it.
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
snip
So:
QUESTION 1: does that sound right: that in a perfect world, the
current gufunc convention would be the only one, and that's what we
should work towards, at least in the cases where that's possible?
Sounds
10 matches
Mail list logo