Charles R Harris wrote:
>
> The declarations were for the SPARC. Originally I had them up in an
> ifdef up top, but I got curious what different machines would do.
I still don't understand what exact problem they solve. Since the
declarations are put when HAVE_FOO is defined, the only problems I c
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 17:45, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 16:51, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 15:52, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
> Currentl
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 16:51, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 15:52, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
Currently numpy arrays are either writable or unwritable, but
un
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 16:51, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 15:52, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
>>> Currently numpy arrays are either writable or unwritable, but
>>> unwritable arrays can still be changed through other copies.
> It is a bug in VS, but the problem is caused by buggy code in numpy,
> so this can be avoided. Incidentally, I was working on it yesterday,
> but went to bed before having fixed everything :)
>
That's good to know. Thank you for fixing it and let us know when it's
ready for test.
-lin
__
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 15:52, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
>> Currently numpy arrays are either writable or unwritable, but
>> unwritable arrays can still be changed through other copies. This
>> means that when a numpy array is passed into an int
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 15:52, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
> Currently numpy arrays are either writable or unwritable, but
> unwritable arrays can still be changed through other copies. This
> means that when a numpy array is passed into an interface that
> requires immutability for safety reasons, a
Currently numpy arrays are either writable or unwritable, but
unwritable arrays can still be changed through other copies. This
means that when a numpy array is passed into an interface that
requires immutability for safety reasons, a copy always has to be
made.
One way around this would be to ad
Hello David.
I am using the Intel MKL BLAS/LAPACK. I have replaced this with AMD's ACML
library. Now there is no exception raised due to a "Singular matrix" while
trying to move the legend(wiggling the graph). So, the graph is updated and
the interaction is fine(you can wiggle the graph and it upd
Hi Micheal.
I am going on vacation tomorrow. An example will have to wait until I am back,
but I can give some version information now:
Numpy is version 1.2.1, Matplotlib is version 0.98.5 and I am using
stock-standard(not the Enthought version or other distribution) Python 2.5.
My Python 2.5 I a
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM, David Cournapeau <
da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Cournapeau
> > mailto:da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp>>
> > wrote:
>
>
> It does not work at the moment on windows at least :) But mor
On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Jim Vickroy wrote:
>>
> Sorry for being dense about this, but I really do not understand why
> masked values should not be trusted. If I apply a procedure to an
> array with elements designated as untouchable, I would expect that
> contract to be honored. What
Ryan May wrote:
Pierre GM wrote:
On Dec 16, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Ryan May wrote:
I just noticed the following and I was kind of surprised:
a = ma.MaskedArray([1,2,3,4,5], mask=[False,True,True,False,False])
b = a*5
b
masked_array(data = [5 -- -- 20 25],
mask =
Pierre GM wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Ryan May wrote:
>> I just noticed the following and I was kind of surprised:
>>
> a = ma.MaskedArray([1,2,3,4,5], mask=[False,True,True,False,False])
> b = a*5
> b
>> masked_array(data = [5 -- -- 20 25],
>> mask = [False True True
Pierre GM wrote:
> Ryan,
> OK, I'll look into that. I won't have time to address it before this
> next week, however. Option #2 looks like the best.
No hurries, I just want to make sure I raise any issues I see while the design
is
still up for change.
> In other news, I was considering renami
George wrote:
> David Cournapeau gmail.com> writes:
Hi George,
> I have debugged some more but I am in deep (murky) waters, but I have also ran
> out of ideas. If anybody has some more suggestions, please post them.
Could you post a full example with additional version info that you are
usin
David Cournapeau gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:50 AM, George Goussard emss.co.za> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have been battling with the following error for the past week. The output
> > from the terminal is:
> >
>
> What does numpy.test() says ? Did you use an exte
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:26 PM, David Cournapeau
wrote:
> Christian Heimes wrote:
>> David Cournapeau schrieb:
>>
>>> Do you only need numpy or also scipy ? If you only need numpy, it is
>>> relatively straightforward because you don't need BLAS/LAPACK nor any
>>> fortran compiler. You should use
18 matches
Mail list logo
