Hi, instead of putting up a pull request that reverts all the 25000
lines of code than have been written to support an NA mask, why won't
you set up a pull request that uses the current code base to implement
your own ideas on how it should work?
___
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14
===
Announcing PyTables 2.3.1
===
We are happy to announce PyTables 2.3.1.
This is a bugfix release. Upgrading is recommended for users that are
running PyTables in production environments.
What's new
==
This release includes a small
On 10/29/2011 12:26 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
The history of this discussion doesn't suggest it straightforward to get
a design right first time. It's a complex subject.
The second part of your statement, and then implement, sounds so
simple. The reality is that there are only a handful of
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
Matt,
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Forget about rudeness or decision processes.
No, that's a common mistake, which is to assume that any conversation
about things which
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM,
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37
On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend to pay attention to those
who have made consistent contributions over the years, reviewed code, fixed
bugs, and have generally been active in numpy development. In any
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend to pay attention to those
who have made consistent contributions over the years, reviewed
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM,
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM,
Ted To rainexpected at theo.to writes:
On 07/05/2011 11:07 AM, josef.pktd at gmail.com wrote:
For example sample x=U and then sample y=u-x. That's two univariate
normal samples.
Ah, that's what I was looking for! Many thanks!
You need to be careful, though - if you just sample
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM,
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48
2011/10/29 Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett
matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau sh...@keba.be wrote:
2011/10/29 Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett
matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead:
a.mask[0:2] = True?
That would be consistent with numpy.ma and the opposite of Mark's
implementation.
I can live with either, but I much prefer the numpy.ma version
Hi,
Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
arbitrarily large number?
As in
v = int_to_float128(some_value)
?
I'm trying things like
v = np.float128(2**64+2)
but, because (in other threads) the float128 seems to be going through
float64 on assignment, this loses
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be
instead:
a.mask[0:2] = True?
That would be consistent with numpy.ma and the opposite of Mark's
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead:
a.mask[0:2] = True?
That would be consistent with numpy.ma and the opposite of Mark's
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48
On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55
To be honest, you have been slandering a lot, also in previous
discussions, to get what you wanted. This is not a healthy way of
discussion, nor does it help in any way.
There have been many people willing to listen and agree with you on
points; and this is exactly what discussion is all about,
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Han Genuit hangen...@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest, you have been slandering a lot, also in previous
discussions, to get what you wanted. This is not a healthy way of
discussion, nor does it help in any way.
That's a severe accusation. Please quote
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root
On 10/29/2011 12:57 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu
mailto:efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it
be
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM,
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
arbitrarily large number?
As in
v = int_to_float128(some_value)
?
I'm trying things like
v = np.float128(2**64+2)
but, because (in
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59
On 10/29/11 5:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead:
a.mask[0:2] = True?
It's something that I actually find a bit difficult to get right in the
current numpy.ma http://numpy.ma implementation: I would find more
intuitive
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
arbitrarily large number?
As in
v =
On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
wrote:
On 10/29/11 5:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be
instead:
a.mask[0:2] = True?
It's something that I actually find a bit difficult to get right in the
Here are my needs:
1) How NAs are implemented cannot be end user visible. Having to pass
maskna=True is a problem. I suppose a solution is to set the flag to
true on every array inside of pandas so the user never knows (you
mentioned someone else had some other solution, i could go back
46 matches
Mail list logo
