Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 03:10:20PM -0500, Colin J. Williams wrote:
>
>> Many thanks. In general, there is sense in the Python dictum about having
>> one
>> way to do things. Although, in this case [length] vs length for one
>> dimension
>> doesn't
>> exercise me
Francesc Altet wrote:
>El dj 14 de 09 del 2006 a les 02:11 -0700, en/na Andrew Straw va
>escriure:
>
>
My main focus is on the fact that you might read '>>>"less" than 4-bytes int, which is very confusing !
>>>I can agree it's confusing at first, but it's th
I'm a numarray user that relies on convolve.
I would hope that one of the criteria by which to make such decisions is
"make the transition for numarray and numeric users as painless as
possible". Changing namespaces and introducing additional dependencies
is not painless. Thus unless there is a
interactive use.
If the concern is for for matlab compatibility, maybe a synonym module
numpy.as_matlab could define all the synonyms, that matlab users could
then use? That would make more sense to me than inflicting obscure
matlab names on the rest of the user community.
Vicki Laidler
Sven Schreiber wrote:
>Jon Peirce schrieb:
>
>
>>There used to be a function generalized_inverse in the numpy.linalg
>>module (certainly in 0.9.2).
>>
>>In numpy0.9.8 it seems to have been moved to the numpy.linalg.old
>>subpackage. Does that mean it's being dropped? Did it have to move? Now
Hi,
Pardon me if I'm reprising an earlier discussion, as I'm new to the list.
But is there a reason that this obscure syntax
A[arange(2)[:,newaxis],indexes]
A[arange(A.shape[0])[:,newaxis],indexes]
is preferable to the intuitively reasonable thing that the Original
Poster did?
A[indexes]
