26.10.2011 10:07, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> I guess from your answer that such a warning would be complicated to
>> implement, and if that's the case, I can imagine it would be low
>> priority.
>
> I assume the problem is more that it
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> So, I am very interested in making sure I remember the details of the
> counterproposal. What I recall is that you wanted to be able to
> differentiate between a "bit-pattern" mask and a boolean-array mask in the
> API. I belie
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> I guess from your answer that such a warning would be complicated to
>> implement, and if that's the case, I can imagine it would be low
>> priority.
>
> I assume the problem
26.10.2011 09:09, Grové kirjoitti:
> I have picked up a strange limit to np.in1d():
> --
>
> b
> Out[100]:
> array(['2007-01-01T02:30:00+0200', '2007-01-01T03:00:00+0200',
>'2007-01-01T03:30:00+0200', ..., '2008-01-01T01:00:00+0200',
>'2008-01-01T01:30:00+0200', '2008-01-0
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> I guess from your answer that such a warning would be complicated to
> implement, and if that's the case, I can imagine it would be low
> priority.
I assume the problem is more that it would be a weirdo check that
becomes a maintenance burde
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> That reminds me of the old joke about the Irishman giving directions -
> "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here".
Sounds about accurate `1
>
>> I would rather spend some time on implementing/integrating portable
>> quad precision in s
I have picked up a strange limit to np.in1d():
--
b
Out[100]:
array(['2007-01-01T02:30:00+0200', '2007-01-01T03:00:00+0200',
'2007-01-01T03:30:00+0200', ..., '2008-01-01T01:00:00+0200',
'2008-01-01T01:30:00+0200', '2008-01-01T02:00:00+0200'],
dtype='datetime64[s]')
b.shape
