[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.24.0rc2 released

[Charles R Harris]

Hi All,

On behalf of the NumPy team, I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy
1.24.0rc1. The NumPy 1.24.0 release continues the ongoing work to improve
the handling and promotion of dtypes, increase execution speed, and
clarify the documentation. There are also a large number of new and expired
deprecations due to changes in promotion and cleanups. This might be called
a deprecation release. Highlights are

   - Many new deprecations.
   - Many expired deprecations.
   - New f2py features and fixes.
   - New "dtype" and "casting" keywords for stacking functions.

The Python versions supported in this release are 3.8-3.11 Note that 32 bit
wheels are only provided for Windows, all other wheels are 64 bits on
account of Ubuntu, Fedora, and other Linux distributions dropping 32 bit
support. Wheels can be downloaded from PyPI
; source archives, release
notes, and wheel hashes are available on Github
.

*Contributors*

A total of 175 people contributed to this release.  People with a "+" by
their
names contributed a patch for the first time.

   - @DWesl
   - @amagicmuffin +
   - @dg3192 +
   - @h-vetinari
   - @juztamau5 +
   - @swagatip +
   - Aaron Meurer
   - Aayush Agrawal +
   - Adam Knapp +
   - Adarsh Singh +
   - Al-Baraa El-Hag
   - Alban Desmaison +
   - Ales Crocaro +
   - Alex Low +
   - Alexander Grund +
   - Alexander Kanavin +
   - Andras Deak
   - Angéllica Araujo +
   - Anselm Hahn +
   - Ari Cooper Davis +
   - Axel Huebl +
   - Bas van Beek
   - Bhavuk Kalra
   - Bram Ton +
   - Brent Tan +
   - Brigitta Sipőcz
   - Callum O'Riley +
   - Charles Harris
   - Chiara Marmo
   - Christoph Reiter
   - Damien Caliste
   - Dan Schult +
   - Daniel da Silva
   - DanielHabenicht +
   - Dave Goel +
   - David Gilbertson +
   - Developer-Ecosystem-Engineering
   - Digya Acharya +
   - Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos
   - Eric-Shang +
   - Evgeni Burovski
   - Ewout ter Hoeven
   - Felix Hirwa Nshuti +
   - Frazer McLean +
   - Ganesh Kathiresan
   - Gavin Zhang +
   - Gaëtan de Menten
   - Greg Lucas
   - Greg Sadetsky +
   - Gregory P. Smith [Google LLC] +
   - Hameer Abbasi
   - Hannah Aizenman +
   - Hood Chatham
   - I-Shen Leong
   - Iantra Solari +
   - Ikko Ashimine +
   - Inessa Pawson
   - Jake Bowhay +
   - Jake Close +
   - Jarrod Millman
   - Jason Thai
   - JessePires +
   - Jessé Pires +
   - Jhonatan Cunha +
   - Jingxuan He +
   - Johnathon Cusick +
   - Jon Morris
   - Jordy Williams +
   - Josh Wilson
   - João Fontes Gonçalves +
   - Juan Luis Cano Rodríguez
   - Jyn Spring 琴春 +
   - KIU Shueng Chuan
   - Karl Otness +
   - Kevin Sheppard
   - Kinshuk Dua +
   - Leo Fang
   - Leona Taric +
   - Lev Maximov +
   - Lillian Zha +
   - Loïc Estève
   - M. Eric Irrgang +
   - Mariusz Felisiak
   - Mark Harfouche
   - Martin Zacho +
   - Matheus Santana Patriarca +
   - Matt Williams +
   - Matteo Raso +
   - Matthew Barber
   - Matthew Brett
   - Matthew Sterrett +
   - Matthias Bussonnier
   - Matthias Koeppe +
   - Matti Picus
   - Meekail Zain +
   - Melissa Weber Mendonça
   - Michael Osthege +
   - Michael Siebert +
   - Mike Toews
   - Miki Watanabe +
   - Miles Cranmer +
   - Monika Kubek +
   - Muhammad Jarir Kanji +
   - Mukulika Pahari
   - Namami Shanker
   - Nathan Goldbaum +
   - Nathan Rooy +
   - Navpreet Singh +
   - Noritada Kobayashi +
   - Oleksiy Kononenko +
   - Omar Ali +
   - Pal Barta +
   - Pamphile Roy
   - Patrick Hoefler +
   - Pearu Peterson
   - Pedro Nacht +
   - Petar Mlinarić +
   - Peter Hawkins
   - Pey Lian Lim
   - Pieter Eendebak
   - Pradipta Ghosh
   - Pranab Das +
   - Precision Wordcraft LLC +
   - PrecisionWordcraft +
   - Rafael CF Sousa +
   - Rafael Cardoso Fernandes Sousa
   - Rafael Sousa +
   - Raghuveer Devulapalli
   - Ralf Gommers
   - Rin Cat (鈴猫) +
   - Robert Kern
   - Rohit Davas +
   - Rohit Goswami
   - Ross Barnowski
   - Ruth Comer +
   - Sabiha Tahsin Soha +
   - Sachin Krishnan T V +
   - Sanjana M Moodbagil +
   - Sanya Sinha +
   - Sarah Coffland +
   - Saransh Chopra +
   - Satish Kumar Mishra +
   - Satish Mishra +
   - Sayed Adel
   - Schrijvers Luc +
   - Sebastian Berg
   - Serge Guelton
   - Seva Lotoshnikov +
   - Shashank Gupta +
   - Shoban Chiddarth +
   - Shreya Singh +
   - Shreyas Joshi +
   - Sicheng Zeng +
   - Simran Makandar +
   - Shuangchi He +
   - Srimukh Sripada +
   - Stefan van der Walt
   - Stefanie Molin +
   - Stuart Archibald
   - Tania Allard
   - Thomas A Caswell
   - Thomas Kastl +
   - Thomas Mansencal +
   - Tony Newton / Teng Liu +
   - Toshiki Kataoka
   - Tyler Reddy
   - Vardhaman Kalloli +
   - Warren Weckesser
   - Will Ayd +
   - William Stein +
   - XinRu Lin +
   - Yin Li +
   - Yunika Bajracharya +
   - Zachary Blackwood +
   - 渡邉 美希 +

Cheers,

Charles Harris
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
To unsubscribe se

[Numpy-discussion] Re: status of long double support and what to do about it

[abhisrkckl]

Hello,

I am interested in contributing to this. I am a contributor in the PINT pulsar 
timing package Scott mentioned. But I am new to contributing to numpy, and I am 
not sure where or how to begin. Are there beginner-level resources that I can 
look at?

Regards

Abhimanyu Susobhanan
Postdoctoral fellow
Centre for Gravitation, Cosmology, and Astrophysics
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Adding bit_count ufunc

[Ganesh Kathiresan]

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions! I have gotten the PR to a working state with UT
on top of the latest main (PR ).

So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count`
> rather than `bit_count`.


This does sound like a good idea, but would it confuse the users given the
scalar version is called `bit_count`? We could change/add an alias for
scalar bit_count to `bitwise_count` but that would be different from the
Python `bit_count
` added in
3.10. Any idea on how to proceed? I'm ok with calling it `bitwise_count` or
`bit_count`.

Thanks,
Ganesh

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:20 AM Ralf Gommers  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 9:55 PM Serge Guelton 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:09:02PM +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote:
>> > Thanks for bringing this up again.  The Python method exists and it
>> > seems like relatively basic functionality.
>> >
>> > Overall, I am slightly in favor of adding the ufunc.  So if nobody
>> > voices an opinion that it doesn't seem a good fit for NumPy, I would be
>> > happy to move forward with it.
>>
>
> It seems like there is enough demand, so +0.5 from me.
>
>
>> > PS: One of my main concern would be if we were to add many bitwise
>> > functions, in which case a `bitwise` namespace might be nice.  But I am
>> > not convinced that should stop us here.
>>
>> Technically speaking, bitwise_and, birwise_or, bitwise_xor and bitwise_not
>> already exist and popcount is widely spread, it already has its compiler
>> builtin
>> under the name of __builtin_popcount
>>
>
> Those four `bitwise_*` functions also came to mind for me. I'll also add
> that Python has six bit-wise operators (
> https://wiki.python.org/moin/BitwiseOperators), and because of that the
> array API standard implements `bitwise_left_shift` and
> `bitwise_right_shift` in addition to the four functions that NumPy has.
>
> So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count`
> rather than `bit_count`.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
> Member address: ganesh3...@gmail.com
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com

[Numpy-discussion] next NumPy community meeting

[Inessa Pawson]

The next NumPy community meeting will be held this Wednesday, December 7th
at 19:00 (7 pm) UTC.
Join us via Zoom:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83278611437?pwd=ekhoLzlHRjdWc0NOY2FQM0NPemdkZz09
Everyone is welcome and encouraged to attend.
To add to the meeting agenda the topics you’d like to discuss, follow the
link: https://hackmd.io/76o-IxCjQX2mOXO_wwkcpg?both
For the notes from the previous meeting, visit:
https://github.com/numpy/archive/blob/main/community_meetings/community-2022-11-23.md

-- 
Cheers,
Inessa

Inessa Pawson
Contributor Experience Lead | NumPy
https://numpy.org/
GitHub: inessapawson
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Adding bit_count ufunc

[Ralf Gommers]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 6:30 PM Ganesh Kathiresan 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions! I have gotten the PR to a working state with
> UT on top of the latest main (PR
> ).
>
> So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count`
>> rather than `bit_count`.
>
>
> This does sound like a good idea, but would it confuse the users given the
> scalar version is called `bit_count`? We could change/add an alias for
> scalar bit_count to `bitwise_count` but that would be different from the
> Python `bit_count
> ` added in
> 3.10. Any idea on how to proceed? I'm ok with calling it `bitwise_count` or
> `bit_count`.
>

I don't think it would confuse users. This is not a feature for the
beginner/average user, it will have few users right now, and as long as the
correspondence is mentioned in the docstring this should be discoverable
enough. I'd much prefer no alias, we already have way too many of those and
most of them are only noise at this point.

Cheers,
Ralf


> Thanks,
> Ganesh
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:20 AM Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 9:55 PM Serge Guelton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:09:02PM +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote:
>>> > Thanks for bringing this up again.  The Python method exists and it
>>> > seems like relatively basic functionality.
>>> >
>>> > Overall, I am slightly in favor of adding the ufunc.  So if nobody
>>> > voices an opinion that it doesn't seem a good fit for NumPy, I would be
>>> > happy to move forward with it.
>>>
>>
>> It seems like there is enough demand, so +0.5 from me.
>>
>>
>>> > PS: One of my main concern would be if we were to add many bitwise
>>> > functions, in which case a `bitwise` namespace might be nice.  But I am
>>> > not convinced that should stop us here.
>>>
>>> Technically speaking, bitwise_and, birwise_or, bitwise_xor and
>>> bitwise_not
>>> already exist and popcount is widely spread, it already has its compiler
>>> builtin
>>> under the name of __builtin_popcount
>>>
>>
>> Those four `bitwise_*` functions also came to mind for me. I'll also add
>> that Python has six bit-wise operators (
>> https://wiki.python.org/moin/BitwiseOperators), and because of that the
>> array API standard implements `bitwise_left_shift` and
>> `bitwise_right_shift` in addition to the four functions that NumPy has.
>>
>> So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count`
>> rather than `bit_count`.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ralf
>>
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
>> Member address: ganesh3...@gmail.com
>>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
> Member address: ralf.gomm...@gmail.com
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com

[Numpy-discussion] Re: Adding bit_count ufunc

[Ganesh Kathiresan]

>
>  as long as the correspondence is mentioned in the docstring this should
> be discoverable enough


Ah ok, that's a good point. I will make the change. Thanks!

~Ganesh

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:21 AM Ralf Gommers  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 6:30 PM Ganesh Kathiresan 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions! I have gotten the PR to a working state with
>> UT on top of the latest main (PR
>> ).
>>
>> So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count`
>>> rather than `bit_count`.
>>
>>
>> This does sound like a good idea, but would it confuse the users given
>> the scalar version is called `bit_count`? We could change/add an alias for
>> scalar bit_count to `bitwise_count` but that would be different from the
>> Python `bit_count
>> ` added
>> in 3.10. Any idea on how to proceed? I'm ok with calling it `bitwise_count`
>> or `bit_count`.
>>
>
> I don't think it would confuse users. This is not a feature for the
> beginner/average user, it will have few users right now, and as long as the
> correspondence is mentioned in the docstring this should be discoverable
> enough. I'd much prefer no alias, we already have way too many of those and
> most of them are only noise at this point.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Ganesh
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:20 AM Ralf Gommers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 9:55 PM Serge Guelton 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:09:02PM +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote:
 > Thanks for bringing this up again.  The Python method exists and it
 > seems like relatively basic functionality.
 >
 > Overall, I am slightly in favor of adding the ufunc.  So if nobody
 > voices an opinion that it doesn't seem a good fit for NumPy, I would
 be
 > happy to move forward with it.

>>>
>>> It seems like there is enough demand, so +0.5 from me.
>>>
>>>
 > PS: One of my main concern would be if we were to add many bitwise
 > functions, in which case a `bitwise` namespace might be nice.  But I
 am
 > not convinced that should stop us here.

 Technically speaking, bitwise_and, birwise_or, bitwise_xor and
 bitwise_not
 already exist and popcount is widely spread, it already has its
 compiler builtin
 under the name of __builtin_popcount

>>>
>>> Those four `bitwise_*` functions also came to mind for me. I'll also add
>>> that Python has six bit-wise operators (
>>> https://wiki.python.org/moin/BitwiseOperators), and because of that the
>>> array API standard implements `bitwise_left_shift` and
>>> `bitwise_right_shift` in addition to the four functions that NumPy has.
>>>
>>> So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count`
>>> rather than `bit_count`.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ralf
>>>
>>> ___
>>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
>>> Member address: ganesh3...@gmail.com
>>>
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
>> Member address: ralf.gomm...@gmail.com
>>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
> Member address: ganesh3...@gmail.com
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com