On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
[...]
> There seems to be a lot of pent-up motivation to improve on the random
> number generation, in particular the distributions, that has been blocked by
> our policy. I think we've lost a few potential first-time contributors that
> have run
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:57 AM Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>> As an alternative, we may also want to leave `np.random.RandomState`
entirely fixed in place as deprecated legacy code that is never updated.
This would allow current unit tests that
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:27 AM, wrote:
> I'm not sure I fully understand
> Is the proposal to drop stream-backward compatibility completely for the
future or just a one time change?
For all future.
> > No version-selection API would be required as you select the version by
installing the desir
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 23:55:57 +0900
> From: Robert Kern
>
> tl;dr: I think that our stream-compatibility policy is holding us back, and
> I think we can come up with a way forward with a new policy that will allow
> us to innovate without seriously compromising our reliability.
>
> I propose t
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:57 AM Robert Kern wrote:
> As an alternative, we may also want to leave `np.random.RandomState`
> entirely fixed in place as deprecated legacy code that is never updated.
> This would allow current unit tests that depend on the stream-compatibility
> that we previously p
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
> tl;dr: I think that our stream-compatibility policy is holding us back,
> and I think we can come up with a way forward with a new policy that will
> allow us to innovate without seriously compromising our reliability.
>
> To recap, our curren
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett > >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Chuck,
>
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Chuck,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 19,
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chuck,
>>
>> Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:4
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chuck,
>>
>> Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 a
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful.
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 a
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Mads Ipsen wrote:
>
> I am confused . Shouldn't rint round to nearest integer.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/rint
It does. Matthew was asking specifically about its behavior when it is
rounding numbers ending in .5, not the general case. Since tha
I am confused . Shouldn't rint round to nearest integer.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/rint
Regards Mads
On Jan 19, 2018 15:50, "Matthew Brett" wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful.
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>
tl;dr: I think that our stream-compatibility policy is holding us back, and
I think we can come up with a way forward with a new policy that will allow
us to innovate without seriously compromising our reliability.
To recap, our current policy for numpy.random is that we guarantee that the
stream
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry for my confusion, bu
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry for my confusion, but I noticed (as a result of the discussion
>> here [1]) that np.rint and the fallback C function [2] seem to round
>> to even. But - my
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for my confusion, but I noticed (as a result of the discussion
> here [1]) that np.rint and the fallback C function [2] seem to round
> to even. But - my impression was that C rint, by default, rounds down
> [3]. Is numpy ri
Hi,
Sorry for my confusion, but I noticed (as a result of the discussion
here [1]) that np.rint and the fallback C function [2] seem to round
to even. But - my impression was that C rint, by default, rounds down
[3]. Is numpy rint not behaving the same way as the GNU C library
rint?
In [4]: np
18 matches
Mail list logo
