Hi,
I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of
compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern
the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in
progress.
Basically, the pros:
- we will have to move at some point
- gcc 4.* seem
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of
compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern
the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of
compilers for official win32 installers. This would of
On 10/27/2011 7:02 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of
compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern
the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in
progress.
Basically, the pros:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jim Vickroy jim.vick...@noaa.gov wrote:
Hi David,
What is the msvcr90 vodoo you are referring to?
gcc 3.* versions don't have stubs to link against recent versions of
MS C runtime, so we have to build them by ourselves. 4.x series don't
have this issue,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:02 AM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of
compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern
the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in
Hi David,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:02 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of
compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern
the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:18 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:02 AM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of
compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern
the next
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com 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
That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself convinced by Matthew's
arguments.I think that being able to separate ABSENT from IGNORED is a good
idea. I also like being able to control SKIP and PROPAGATE (but I think the
current implementation allows this already).
What is the
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.comwrote:
That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself convinced by Matthew's
arguments.I think that being able to separate ABSENT from IGNORED is a
good idea. I also like being able to control SKIP and PROPAGATE
As I mentioned. I find the ability to separate an ABSENT idea from an IGNORED
idea convincing.In other words, I think distinguishing between masks and
bit-patterns is not just an implementation detail, but provides a useful
concept for multiple use-cases.
I understand exactly what it
On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com
wrote:
That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself convinced by Matthew's
arguments.I think that being able to separate ABSENT
13 matches
Mail list logo
