Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Ralf Gommers < >> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris < >>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a > 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing > still > are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is > undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: > 'casting', > 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). > >>> We should probably postpone the beta by a few days, there are some other loose ends floating about. Besides documentation the only thing I can think of is the structured >>> array non-existing filed segfault thing. And perhaps #1619 would be good to >>> have fixed, but not essential for a beta IMHO. Anything else? >>> >>> >> Just that things that go in at the last moment should be let sit a bit to >> settle. >> >> True. I will create the branch already though, otherwise there will > continue to be things that just went in. > > Things have settled enough I think, planning to update the API version hash one last time and tag beta1 tonight. Ralf ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Ralf Gommers < > ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Ralf Gommers < >> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris < >>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a > 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing > still > are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is > undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: > 'casting', > 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). > > >>> Okay, I'll write some docs for the nditer object. >>> >> >> Hi Mark, could you review and fill in a few blanks: >> https://github.com/rgommers/numpy/tree/nditer-docs >> > > I've changed some and filled in more details. Sphinx appears to get this > totally wrong though, it completely ignores the Attributes section (maybe > those need to be separated out?), and links to numpy.copy instead of > nditer.copy in the Methods section. > > Yes, that's a bug in the Sphinx autosummary extension. And also in the class template in the numpy reference guide source. I already filed #1772 for that. Attributes section should be fine as it is. Cheers, Ralf ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Ralf Gommers < > ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> >>> I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing still are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: 'casting', 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). >> Okay, I'll write some docs for the nditer object. >> > > Hi Mark, could you review and fill in a few blanks: > https://github.com/rgommers/numpy/tree/nditer-docs > I've changed some and filled in more details. Sphinx appears to get this totally wrong though, it completely ignores the Attributes section (maybe those need to be separated out?), and links to numpy.copy instead of nditer.copy in the Methods section. -Mark ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers < >>> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with an API you have reservations about. >>> >>> I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a >>> 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing still >>> are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is >>> undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: 'casting', >>> 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). >>> >>> > Okay, I'll write some docs for the nditer object. > > >> We should probably postpone the beta by a few days, there are some other >> loose ends floating about. >> >> Besides documentation the only thing I can think of is the structured > array non-existing filed segfault thing. And perhaps #1619 would be good to > have fixed, but not essential for a beta IMHO. Anything else? > I took a look at #1619, and added a comment suggesting an approach to fix it. For the goal of having structured types work reasonably, this one definitely needs a fix. -Mark ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> >>> I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing still are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: 'casting', 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). >>> >> >>> We should probably postpone the beta by a few days, there are some other >>> loose ends floating about. >>> >>> Besides documentation the only thing I can think of is the structured >> array non-existing filed segfault thing. And perhaps #1619 would be good to >> have fixed, but not essential for a beta IMHO. Anything else? >> >> > Just that things that go in at the last moment should be let sit a bit to > settle. > > True. I will create the branch already though, otherwise there will continue to be things that just went in. Ralf ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >> I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a >>> 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing still >>> are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is >>> undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: 'casting', >>> 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). >>> >>> > Okay, I'll write some docs for the nditer object. > Hi Mark, could you review and fill in a few blanks: https://github.com/rgommers/numpy/tree/nditer-docs Cheers, Ralf ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers < >>> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with an API you have reservations about. >>> >>> I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a >>> 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing still >>> are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is >>> undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: 'casting', >>> 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). >>> >>> > Okay, I'll write some docs for the nditer object. > > >> We should probably postpone the beta by a few days, there are some other >> loose ends floating about. >> >> Besides documentation the only thing I can think of is the structured > array non-existing filed segfault thing. And perhaps #1619 would be good to > have fixed, but not essential for a beta IMHO. Anything else? > > Just that things that go in at the last moment should be let sit a bit to settle. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers < >> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you >>> want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a >>> couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with >>> an API you have reservations about. >>> >> >> I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a >> 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing still >> are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is >> undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: 'casting', >> 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). >> >> Okay, I'll write some docs for the nditer object. > We should probably postpone the beta by a few days, there are some other > loose ends floating about. > > Besides documentation the only thing I can think of is the structured array non-existing filed segfault thing. And perhaps #1619 would be good to have fixed, but not essential for a beta IMHO. Anything else? Cheers, Ralf ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers < > ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers >> >>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the >> first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday >> evening. >> >> Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in >> headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope >> this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: >> Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of >> stuff). >> >>> >> >>> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator >> >>> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more >> difficult >> >>> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from >> 'newiter' >> >>> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better >> >>> suggestion? >> >> >> >> I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see >> where >> >> nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. >> > >> > I didn't rename the files, I can do that too. >> >> Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you >> want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a >> couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with >> an API you have reservations about. >> > > I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a > 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing still > are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is > undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: 'casting', > 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). > > We should probably postpone the beta by a few days, there are some other loose ends floating about. Chuck > > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers > >>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the > first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday > evening. > > Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in > headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope > this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: > Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of > stuff). > >>> > >>> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator > >>> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more > difficult > >>> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from > 'newiter' > >>> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better > >>> suggestion? > >> > >> I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see where > >> nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. > > > > I didn't rename the files, I can do that too. > > Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you > want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a > couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with > an API you have reservations about. > I pushed one more small API change to PyArray_NewLikeArray, adding a 'subok' parameter which lets you disable sub-types. The things missing still are documentation (maybe others can help?). The Python nditer exposure is undocumented, as well as the new parameters to ufuncs (full list: 'casting', 'out', 'order', 'subok', 'dtype'). -Mark ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:11 PM, John Salvatier > wrote: > > If they return a tuple of indexes I think 'mulitiindex' sounds quite > good. > > That is exactly what a multiindex is > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-index_notation). > > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >>> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe > wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers > >>> >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag > the > >>> first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday > >>> evening. > >>> > >>> Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in > >>> headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I > hope > >>> this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: > >>> Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch > of > >>> stuff). > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the > iterator > >>> >>> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more > >>> >>> difficult > >>> >>> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from > >>> >>> 'newiter' > >>> >>> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better > >>> >>> suggestion? > >>> >> > >>> >> I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see > >>> >> where > >>> >> nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. > >>> > > >>> > I didn't rename the files, I can do that too. > >>> > >>> Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you > >>> want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a > >>> couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with > >>> an API you have reservations about. > >> > >> I've committed one other change I wanted, renaming > >> NPY_ITER_NO_INNER_ITERATION to something hopefully a bit more intuitive. > >> Nothing else was nagging at me, but it would be great if some people > went > >> through the iterator documentation to see if all the names fit their > >> intuition. We should also come to a consensus on what to call index > tuples, > >> and rename ravel_coords, NPY_ITER_COORDS, NpyIter_GotoCoords, and > >> NpyIter_GetGetCoords based on the chosen name. > > MultiIndex / multi_index works for me too. Can you rename that today > if no one comes up with something better? I've pushed a patch with the rename. Can someone review it to check that it's all good? -Mark > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:11 PM, John Salvatier wrote: > If they return a tuple of indexes I think 'mulitiindex' sounds quite good. > That is exactly what a multiindex is > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-index_notation). > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the >>> first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday >>> evening. >>> >>> Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in >>> headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope >>> this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: >>> Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of >>> stuff). >>> >>> >>> >>> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator >>> >>> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more >>> >>> difficult >>> >>> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from >>> >>> 'newiter' >>> >>> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better >>> >>> suggestion? >>> >> >>> >> I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see >>> >> where >>> >> nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. >>> > >>> > I didn't rename the files, I can do that too. >>> >>> Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you >>> want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a >>> couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with >>> an API you have reservations about. >> >> I've committed one other change I wanted, renaming >> NPY_ITER_NO_INNER_ITERATION to something hopefully a bit more intuitive. >> Nothing else was nagging at me, but it would be great if some people went >> through the iterator documentation to see if all the names fit their >> intuition. We should also come to a consensus on what to call index tuples, >> and rename ravel_coords, NPY_ITER_COORDS, NpyIter_GotoCoords, and >> NpyIter_GetGetCoords based on the chosen name. MultiIndex / multi_index works for me too. Can you rename that today if no one comes up with something better? Ralf ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
If they return a tuple of indexes I think 'mulitiindex' sounds quite good. That is exactly what a multiindex is ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-index_notation). On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers < > ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers >> >>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the >> first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday >> evening. >> >> Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in >> headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope >> this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: >> Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of >> stuff). >> >>> >> >>> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator >> >>> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more >> difficult >> >>> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from >> 'newiter' >> >>> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better >> >>> suggestion? >> >> >> >> I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see >> where >> >> nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. >> > >> > I didn't rename the files, I can do that too. >> >> Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you >> want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a >> couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with >> an API you have reservations about. >> > > I've committed one other change I wanted, renaming > NPY_ITER_NO_INNER_ITERATION to something hopefully a bit more intuitive. > Nothing else was nagging at me, but it would be great if some people went > through the iterator documentation to see if all the names fit their > intuition. We should also come to a consensus on what to call index tuples, > and rename ravel_coords, NPY_ITER_COORDS, NpyIter_GotoCoords, and > NpyIter_GetGetCoords based on the chosen name. > > -Mark > > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers > >>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the > first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday > evening. > > Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in > headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope > this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: > Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of > stuff). > >>> > >>> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator > >>> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more > difficult > >>> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from > 'newiter' > >>> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better > >>> suggestion? > >> > >> I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see where > >> nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. > > > > I didn't rename the files, I can do that too. > > Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you > want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a > couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with > an API you have reservations about. > I've committed one other change I wanted, renaming NPY_ITER_NO_INNER_ITERATION to something hopefully a bit more intuitive. Nothing else was nagging at me, but it would be great if some people went through the iterator documentation to see if all the names fit their intuition. We should also come to a consensus on what to call index tuples, and rename ravel_coords, NPY_ITER_COORDS, NpyIter_GotoCoords, and NpyIter_GetGetCoords based on the chosen name. -Mark ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers >>> wrote: Hi all, On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday evening. Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of stuff). >>> >>> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator >>> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more difficult >>> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from 'newiter' >>> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better >>> suggestion? >> >> I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see where >> nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. > > I didn't rename the files, I can do that too. Hi Mark, I see you just did this, but is there anything else you want/need to do? If it's necessary I can postpone the first beta by a couple of days. Better that than rush things too much and end up with an API you have reservations about. Cheers, Ralf >> On the arr_ravel_coords name and the python exposure of same, I've been >> thinking ravel_fancyindex might be more suggestive than ravel_coords. > > Hmm, that doesn't seem quite right to me, it implies something fancier about > it than I think it actually is. Maybe the ideal would be to have it be > ravel_index/unravel_flatindex, but the unravel_index function already > existed as precedent. On the other hand, in lots of contexts just saying > "index" sounds like it should be one number, not a tuple, which is why in > the iterator API the "index" usage refers to a C or Fortran-order flat > index. Of the options we've considered so far, probably ravel_multiindex is > my favorite, though nothing has really stood out. > -Mark > ___ > 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
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers < >> ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the >>> first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday >>> evening. >>> >>> Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in >>> headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope >>> this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: >>> Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of >>> stuff). >>> >> >> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator >> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more difficult >> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from 'newiter' >> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better >> suggestion? >> >> > I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see where > nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. > I didn't rename the files, I can do that too. > > On the arr_ravel_coords name and the python exposure of same, I've been > thinking ravel_fancyindex might be more suggestive than ravel_coords. > Hmm, that doesn't seem quite right to me, it implies something fancier about it than I think it actually is. Maybe the ideal would be to have it be ravel_index/unravel_flatindex, but the unravel_index function already existed as precedent. On the other hand, in lots of contexts just saying "index" sounds like it should be one number, not a tuple, which is why in the iterator API the "index" usage refers to a C or Fortran-order flat index. Of the options we've considered so far, probably ravel_multiindex is my favorite, though nothing has really stood out. -Mark ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the >> first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday >> evening. >> >> Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in >> headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope >> this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: >> Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of >> stuff). >> > > I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator > construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more difficult > to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from 'newiter' > to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better > suggestion? > > I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see where nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter. On the arr_ravel_coords name and the python exposure of same, I've been thinking ravel_fancyindex might be more suggestive than ravel_coords. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 21:23, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the >> first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday >> evening. >> >> Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in >> headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope >> this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: >> Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of >> stuff). > > I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator > construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more difficult > to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from 'newiter' > to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better > suggestion? +1. As a general rule, never name anything "new". -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the > first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday > evening. > > Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in > headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope > this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: > Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of > stuff). > I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more difficult to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from 'newiter' to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better suggestion? -Mark ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the > first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday > evening. > > Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in > headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope > this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: > Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of > stuff). > Done for assumed shape arrays and size function supports. Best regards, Pearu ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
[Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
Hi all, On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday evening. Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles: Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of stuff). Cheers, Ralf ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
