Travis Oliphant wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:53 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>>> I think we just signal the breakage in 1.4.1 and move forward. The
>>> datetime is useful as a place-holder for data. Math on date-time
>>> arrays
>>> just doesn't work yet.I do
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:53 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
> > Travis Oliphant wrote:
> >
> >> I think we just signal the breakage in 1.4.1 and move forward. The
> >> datetime is useful as a place-holder for data. Math on date-time
> >> arr
Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:46 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:23 PM, David Cournapeau
>> mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, my question was badly worded: besides the metadata pointer, is
>>> there any other change related to t
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:46 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:23 PM, David Cournapeau > wrote:
Sorry, my question was badly worded: besides the metadata pointer, is
there any other change related to the metadata infratructure which
may
potentially change changes the public
On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:53 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>> I think we just signal the breakage in 1.4.1 and move forward. The
>> datetime is useful as a place-holder for data. Math on date-time
>> arrays
>> just doesn't work yet.I don't think removing it is the rig
Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:46, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:23 PM, David Cournapeau
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, my question was badly worded: besides the metadata pointer, is
>>> there any other change related to the metadata infratructure which may
>>> po
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:46, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:23 PM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, my question was badly worded: besides the metadata pointer, is
>> there any other change related to the metadata infratructure which may
>> potentially change changes
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:23 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
> Sorry, my question was badly worded: besides the metadata pointer, is
> there any other change related to the metadata infratructure which may
> potentially change changes the publicly exported structures ? I wonder
> whereas the metada
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Neil Martinsen-Burrell
wrote:
> On 2010-02-02 19:53 , David Cournapeau wrote:
>> Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>>> I think we just signal the breakage in 1.4.1 and move forward. The
>>> datetime is useful as a place-holder for data. Math on date-time arrays
>>> just
Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 21:08, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> Robert Kern wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 20:23, Neil Martinsen-Burrell
>>> wrote:
>>> This is useful feature for more than just datetime
>>> support and should be complete and useful at this time.
>> Couldn't this
On 2010-02-02 20:31 , Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 20:23, Neil Martinsen-Burrell
> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand Travis's comment that "datetime is just a
>> place-holder for data".
>
> That's not a direct quote and is a misinterpretation of what he said.
> In the course of addi
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 21:08, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 20:23, Neil Martinsen-Burrell
>> wrote:
>>This is useful feature for more than just datetime
>> support and should be complete and useful at this time.
>
> Couldn't this be kept independently of
Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 20:23, Neil Martinsen-Burrell
> wrote:
>This is useful feature for more than just datetime
> support and should be complete and useful at this time.
Couldn't this be kept independently of the datetime support ? At least
as far as the PyArray_ArrFuncs
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 20:23, Neil Martinsen-Burrell wrote:
> I don't understand Travis's comment that "datetime is just a
> place-holder for data".
That's not a direct quote and is a misinterpretation of what he said.
In the course of adding the datetime support, we implemented it by
adding a g
On 2010-02-02 19:53 , David Cournapeau wrote:
> Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>> I think we just signal the breakage in 1.4.1 and move forward. The
>> datetime is useful as a place-holder for data. Math on date-time arrays
>> just doesn't work yet.I don't think removing it is the right
>> app
Christopher Barker wrote:
> Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> I'm still pretty strongly against it.
>
> Me too. I was close to posing a note today saying it was fine, but then
> I sat down with a developer I'm working with, and he happened to mention
> that he had rebuilt something or other to accommod
Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I think we just signal the breakage in 1.4.1 and move forward. The
> datetime is useful as a place-holder for data. Math on date-time arrays
> just doesn't work yet.I don't think removing it is the right
> approach.It would be better to spend the time on fles
Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I'm still pretty strongly against it.
Me too. I was close to posing a note today saying it was fine, but then
I sat down with a developer I'm working with, and he happened to mention
that he had rebuilt something or other to accommodate the numpy ABI
change -- so that
Peter Notebaert wrote:
> How can I test if numpy is installed on the system from the extension so
> that I do not active the numpy functionality and that it is still able
> to use my extension, but then without numpy support?
Is there some reason why you cannot try to import numpy first to chec
On Feb 2, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Bruce Southey wrote:
> On 02/02/2010 02:11 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a follow-up of the discussion about ABI-breakage in Numpy
>> 1.4.0. To sum it up, it is caused by the new datetime support, and it
>> seems difficult to fix without removing dat
On Feb 2, 2010, at 3:11 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
Hi,
This is a follow-up of the discussion about ABI-breakage in Numpy
1.4.0. To sum it up, it is caused by the new datetime support, and it
seems difficult to fix without removing datetime support altogether
for the 1.4.x series.
Both Chuck
Hello,
I have written a C-extension for python that uses arrays from python, does
calculations on them and returns a result on that.
I have now also added the possibility to provide numpy arrays. However this is
not a requirement. Python arrays (lists) are still allowed also. I check in the
C-
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:11 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Both Chuck and myself are in favor of removing the datetime altogether
> for 1.4.x as a solution. At least in my case, it is mostly justified
> by the report from David Huard that the current datetime support is
> still a bit too experimen
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:11 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a follow-up of the discussion about ABI-breakage in Numpy
> 1.4.0. To sum it up, it is caused by the new datetime support, and it
> seems difficult to fix without removing datetime support altogether
> for the 1.4.x series.
On 02/02/2010 02:11 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a follow-up of the discussion about ABI-breakage in Numpy
> 1.4.0. To sum it up, it is caused by the new datetime support, and it
> seems difficult to fix without removing datetime support altogether
> for the 1.4.x series.
>
> Both
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:53 AM, wrote:
> 2010/2/2 Ernest Adrogué :
>> 2/02/10 @ 00:01 (-0700), thus spake Charles R Harris:
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:57 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02
2010/2/2 Ernest Adrogué :
> 2/02/10 @ 00:01 (-0700), thus spake Charles R Harris:
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:57 PM, wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Manos Tsagias wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm using numpy.histogram with normed=True with 1D data ranging 0 .. 1. The
> results return probabilities greater than 1. The trapezoidal integral
> returns 1, but I'm afraid this is due to the bin assigned values. Example
> follow
Hi all,
I'm using numpy.histogram with normed=True with 1D data ranging 0 .. 1. The
results return probabilities greater than 1. The trapezoidal integral
returns 1, but I'm afraid this is due to the bin assigned values. Example
follows:
>>> from numpy import *
>>> a = arange(0, 1, 0.1)
>>> histo
2/02/10 @ 00:01 (-0700), thus spake Charles R Harris:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:57 PM, wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Charles R Harris
> > >> w
Hi,
This is a follow-up of the discussion about ABI-breakage in Numpy
1.4.0. To sum it up, it is caused by the new datetime support, and it
seems difficult to fix without removing datetime support altogether
for the 1.4.x series.
Both Chuck and myself are in favor of removing the datetime altoget
31 matches
Mail list logo
