On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Matthieu Brucher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can help with packaging at least numpy with Visual Studio 2003 (well, I
have to check the EULA if I'm allowed to do that !). For scipy, it is a
matter of Fortran compiler :|
That probably won't work. I believe that
2008/4/18, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Matthieu Brucher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can help with packaging at least numpy with Visual Studio 2003 (well,
I
have to check the EULA if I'm allowed to do that !). For scipy, it is a
matter of Fortran
Matthieu Brucher wrote:
2008/4/18, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Matthieu Brucher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I can help with packaging at least numpy with Visual Studio 2003
(well, I
Robert Kern wrote:
Quite possibly. Can you run the segfaulting code in a debugger so we
can try to isolate the actual cause? It is possible that we can patch
it up to work with msvcr71.
I finally managed to do something, for reference:
- I hacked distutils to put -g everywhere (using the
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:43 AM, David Cournapeau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
So it *may* be unrelated to msvc runtime; maybe it just caused a problem
which has always been there. I will try to see if valgrind says anything
useful for sparsetools under linux.
Ok,
Stefan, (or anyone else who might be interested)
Since you committed my fast putmask patch many months ago, I thought you
might like to deal with my fast take patch. Attached is the diff
relative to 5043, ignoring whitespace. (Yes, those pesky whitespace
anomalies are still cropping up.)
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:11:37PM +0200, Olivier Verdier wrote:
In mathematics, if I compare two function, it means that I compare on
all its coordinates. If I say f g I mean f(x) g(x) for all
x.
The same holds for a vector, if I write v == w I mean v[i] == w[i]
for all i.
How come
I certainly didn't mean that A==B should return a boolean!!
A==B should return an array of boolean as it does now. This is all right.
*However* bool(A==B) should return a boolean, *not* raise an
exception. Why raise an exception? What is ambiguous about
bool(A==B)??
This is what happens when
2008/4/18, Olivier Verdier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I certainly didn't mean that A==B should return a boolean!!
A==B should return an array of boolean as it does now. This is all
right.
*However* bool(A==B) should return a boolean, *not* raise an
exception. Why raise an exception? What is
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Olivier Verdier apparently wrote:
What is ambiguous about bool(A==B)?
A==B is an array. Compare:
bool([])
False
bool([0])
True
Even if you decide the second should be false,
what about [0,1]? (I.e., all or any?)
Cheers,
Alan Isaac
Let's restrict the discussion the case to boolean arrays (dtype bool),
since all the comparisons (A==B, A!=B, AB etc. return boolean
arrays).
So I have an array filled with booleans. Is there a reason not to map
bool(A) to A.all() but instead raise an exception?
As far as I can see, if A==B is
Hi,
I must say, I agree with the other posters here, that it is not
completely obvious to me that:
a = np.array([True, False])
bool(a)
should return False. Especially given:
L = [True, False]
bool(L)
returns True.
Given that it's not completely obvious, and
a.all()
is completely
For that matter, is there a reason logical operations don't work on
arrays other than booleans? What about:
import numpy
x = numpy.ones((10), dtype='Bool')
y = numpy.ones((10), dtype='Bool')
y[6] = False
z = x and y # logical AND: this one fails with an error about arrays
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Joe Harrington apparently wrote:
For that matter, is there a reason logical operations don't work on
arrays other than booleans? What about:
import numpy
x = numpy.ones((10), dtype='Bool')
y = numpy.ones((10), dtype='Bool')
y[6] = False
z = x and y # logical AND:
On 18/04/2008, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Joe Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For that matter, is there a reason logical operations don't work on
arrays other than booleans? What about:
The keywords and, or, and not only work on bool
[ Sorry for the cross-post, but I know this is something that has hit
quite a few people on this list. If you have any questions on it,
please ask on the ipython list, this is just an FYI ]
Hi all,
there's a very old, *extremely* annoying bug that multiple people have
asked about (on list and
I reported back on August 30 to this list,
with some discussion following on September 4 and 5,
about my attempt to build numpy on an ancient powerpc setup.
I'm running yellow dog linux 2.1, gcc 2.95.3.20010111, on processors from
Curtiss-Wright Controls.
Don't tell me to just upgrade; this
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Vincent Broman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reported back on August 30 to this list,
with some discussion following on September 4 and 5,
about my attempt to build numpy on an ancient powerpc setup.
I'm running yellow dog linux 2.1, gcc 2.95.3.20010111, on
The signature for a ufunc is something like
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@kind@(char **args, intp *dimensions, intp *steps, void *func)
Which contains all the info necessary to do a sort. Means and other such
functions could also be implemented that way.
Chuck
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The signature for a ufunc is something like
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@kind@(char **args, intp *dimensions, intp *steps, void
*func)
Which
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The signature for a ufunc is something like
@[EMAIL
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL
22 matches
Mail list logo
