I have just added 'See also' to all docstrings in arraysetops functions,
replaced old numpy idioms with new ones (aka modernizing) and
improved speed of numpy.unique1d, which now reflects numpy.unique.
hoping no bugs were introduced, regards,
r.
--
Karol Langner wrote:
> Can someone give me a hint as to where in numpy the AMD and UMFpack
> libraries
> are used, if at all? I ask, because they have their respective sections in
> site.cfg.example in the trunk.
AMD and UMFpack are optional parts of scipy.linsolve, so if you do not
want them
Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Has anybody had any experience with the 3-D visualization software
> VISIT? It has Python bindings and seems to be pretty sophisticated.
> I'm wondering why I haven't heard more about it.
>
> http://www.llnl.gov/visit/
No reaction up to now, so...
I have just tried
Norbert Nemec wrote:
> unique1d is based on ediff1d, so it really calculates many differences
> and compares those to 0.0
>
> This is inefficient, even though this is hidden by the general
> inefficiency of Python (It might be the reason for the two milliseconds,
> though)
>
> What is more: subtr
David Huard wrote:
> Here is a quick benchmark between numpy's unique, unique1d and sasha's
> unique:
>
> x = rand(10)*100
> x = x.astype('i')
>
> %timeit unique(x)
> 10 loops, best of 3: 525 ms per loop
>
> %timeit unique_sasha(x)
> 100 loops, best of 3: 10.7 ms per loop
>
> timeit unique1
Sasha wrote:
> On 7/2/06, Norbert Nemec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>> Does anybody know about the internals of the python "set"? How is
>> .keys() implemented? I somehow have really doubts about the efficiency
>> of this method.
>>
> Set implementation (Objects/setobject.c) is a copy and pas
Charles R Harris wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Modifying your example gives
>
> In [3]: import numpy as nm
>
> In [4]: a = nm.zeros( 1 )
> In [5]: b = nm.arange( 1 )
> In [6]: nm.alltrue( a.argsort(kind="merge" ) == b )
> Out[6]: True
Thanks for all the answers!
r.
Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Robert Cimrman wrote:
>
>>I have just lost some time to find a bug related to the fact, that
>>argsort does not preserve the order of an array that is already sorted,
>>see the example below. For me, it would be sufficient to mention this
Hi all,
I have just lost some time to find a bug related to the fact, that
argsort does not preserve the order of an array that is already sorted,
see the example below. For me, it would be sufficient to mention this
fact in the docstring, although having order preserving argsort is also
an op
