On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Tue
Hi All,
In case it was missed because people have tuned out of the thread: Matti
and I proposed last Tuesday to accept NEP 20 (on coming Tuesday, as per NEP
0), which introduces notation for generalized ufuncs allowing fixed,
flexible and broadcastable core dimensions. For one thing, this will all
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Eric Wieser
wrote:
> Good catch,
>
> I think the latter failing is because np.add.reduce ends up calling
> np.ufunc.reduce.__get__(np.add), and builtin_function.__get__ doesn’t
> appear to do any caching. I suppose caching bound methods would just be a
> waste of
Not to worry, I'll just wait on the daily.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Brett
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Charles R Harris
> >>
Hi Hameer,
It is. The point of the proposed feature was to handle array generation
> mechanisms, that don't take an array as input in the standard NumPy API.
> Giving them a reference handles both the dispatch and the decision about
> which implementation to call.
>
Sorry, I had clearly misunder
Hi Marten,
Sorry, I had clearly misunderstood. It would indeed be nice for overrides
to work on functions like `zeros` or `arange` as well, but it seems strange
to change the signature just for that. As a possible alternative, should we
perhaps generally check for overrides on `dtype`?
While thi
Thanks, that explains a lot! I didn't realize the reverse ordering actually
originated with matlab's polyval, but that makes sense given the one-based
indexing. I see why it is the way it is, but I still think it would make
more sense for np.polyval() to use conventional indexing (c[0] * x^0 + c[1]
Hi Hameer,
I think the override on `dtype` would work - after all, the override is
checked before anything is done, so one can just pass in `self` if one
wishes (or some helper class that contains both `self` and any desired
further information.
But, as you note, it would not cover everything, an
> if a single program uses both np.polyval() and np.polynomail.Polynomial,
it seems bound to cause unnecessary confusion.
Yes, I would recommend definitely not doing that!
> I still think it would make more sense for np.polyval() to use
conventional indexing
Unfortunately, it's too late for "ma
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Eric Wieser
wrote:
> > if a single program uses both np.polyval() and
> np.polynomail.Polynomial, it seems bound to cause unnecessary confusion.
>
> Yes, I would recommend definitely not doing that!
>
> > I still think it would make more sense for np.polyval() t
Hi Marten,
Still, I'm not sure whether this should be included in the present NEP or
is best done separately after, with a few concrete examples of where it
would be useful.
There already are concrete examples from Dask and CuPy, and this is
currently a blocker for them, which is part of the rea
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 11:59 AM Hameer Abbasi
wrote:
> Hi Marten,
>
> Still, I'm not sure whether this should be included in the present NEP or
> is best done separately after, with a few concrete examples of where it
> would be useful.
>
>
> There already are concrete examples from Dask and CuP
I think restricting polynomials to time series is not a generic way and
quite specific.
Apart from the series and certain filter design actual usage of polynomials
are always presented with decreasing order (control and signal processing
included because they use powers of s and inverse powers of
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
> I think restricting polynomials to time series is not a generic way and
> quite specific.
>
I think more of complex analysis and it's use of series.
> Apart from the series and certain filter design actual usage of
> polynomials are always
“the intuitive way” is the decreasing powers.
An argument against this is that accessing the ith power of x is spelt:
- x.coeffs[i] for increasing powers
- x.coeffs[-i-1] for decreasing powers
The former is far more natural than the latter, and avoids a potential
off-by-one error
If I ask
Interesting, I wasn't aware that both conventions were widely used.
Speaking of series with inverse powers (i.e. Laurent series), I wonder how
useful it would be to create a class to represent expressions with integral
powers from -m to n. These come up in my work sometimes, and I usually
represe
Since the one of the arguments for the decreasing order seems to just be
textual representation - do we want to tweak the repr to something like
Polynomial(lambda x: 2*x**3 + 3*x**2 + x + 0)
(And add a constructor that calls the lambda with Polynomial(1))
Eric
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 at 14:30 Eri
Oh, clever... yeah I think that would be very cool. But shouldn't it call
the constructor with Polynomial([0,1])?
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Eric Wieser
wrote:
> Since the one of the arguments for the decreasing order seems to just be
> textual representation - do we want to tweak the repr
*shouldn't the constructor call the lambda with Polynomial([0,1[)
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Maxwell Aifer wrote:
> Oh, clever... yeah I think that would be very cool. But shouldn't it call
> the constructor with Polynomial([0,1])?
>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Eric Wieser
> wrote:
Good catch, it would do that
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 at 15:07 Maxwell Aifer wrote:
> *shouldn't the constructor call the lambda with Polynomial([0,1[)
>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Maxwell Aifer
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, clever... yeah I think that would be very cool. But shouldn't it call
>> the co
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Eric Wieser
> wrote:
>
>> Since the one of the arguments for the decreasing order seems to just be
>> textual representation - do we want to tweak the repr to something like
>>
>> Polynomial(lambda x:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Eric Wieser
wrote:
> Since the one of the arguments for the decreasing order seems to just be
> textual representation - do we want to tweak the repr to something like
>
> Polynomial(lambda x: 2*x**3 + 3*x**2 + x + 0)
>
> (And add a constructor that calls the lamb
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:14 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> I’d love to see a generic way of doing random number generation, but I
> agree with Martin that I don’t see it fitting a naturally into this NEP. An
> invasive change to add an array_reference argument to a bunch of functions
> might indeed
23 matches
Mail list logo
