On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:33 PM, T J tjhn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Again, I really don't think you're going to be able to sell an API where
[2] + [IGNORED(20)] == [IGNORED(22)]
I mean, it's not me you have to convince, it's Gary,
Hi,
05.11.2011 03:43, T J kirjoitti:
[clip]
I thought that PdC satisfied (a) and (b).
Let me show you what I thought they were. Perhaps I am not being
consistent. If so, point out my mistake.
Yes, propagating + destructive assigment + do-computations-on-payload
should satisfy (a) and (b).
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
For np.gradient(), one can specify a sample distance for each axis to
apply to the gradient. But, all this does is just divides the gradient by
the sample distance. I could easily do that myself with the output from
Hi all,
I am pleased to announce the availability of the first release release of
SciPy 0.10.0. For this release over a 100 tickets and pull requests have
been closed, and many new features have been added. Some of the highlights
are:
- support for Bento as a build system for scipy
-
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I noticed this:
(Intel Mac):
In [2]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31))
Out[2]: -2147483648
(PPC):
In [3]:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Intel, gcc:
4, -2147483648
PPC, gcc:
4, 2147483647
I think that's what you predicted. Is it strange that the same
compiler gives
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Intel, gcc:
4, -2147483648
PPC, gcc:
4, 2147483647
