On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones tho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones tho...@gmail.com wrote:
I could look into this. There are only ~10 places the code generates
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote:
All of the failing tests seem to have been caused by the buffer copy bug,
fixed in https://github.com/mwiebe/numpy/tree/nditer_buffer_flag (but not
yet pulled into numpy).
I also have a version that implements tracing, with pure C
Hey,
Another discussion on lazy evaluation, given the recent activity here:
https://github.com/ContinuumIO/numba/pull/6#issuecomment-6117091
A somewhat recent previous thread can be found here:
http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2012-February/060862.html
, and a NEP here:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Thouis Jones thouis.jo...@curie.fr wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones tho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones tho...@gmail.com
I think it's unfortunate that functions like logical_or are limited to binary.
As a workaround, I've been using this:
def apply_binary (func, *args):
if len (args) == 1:
return args[0]
elif len (args) == 2:
return func (*args)
else:
return func (
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be great if we implement the NEP listed above, but with a few
extensions. I think Numpy should handle the lazy evaluation part, and
determine when expressions should be evaluated, etc. However, for each
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
could you multiply the numeric field by -1, sort, then put it back
Yeah, that works great for my situation. Thanks Chris!
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
While that may work for this
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's unfortunate that functions like logical_or are limited to binary.
As a workaround, I've been using this:
def apply_binary (func, *args):
if len (args) == 1:
return args[0]
elif len (args) == 2:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote:
All of the failing tests seem to have been caused by the buffer copy
bug, fixed in https://github.com/mwiebe/numpy/tree/nditer_buffer_flag(but
not yet pulled
On 5 June 2012 14:58, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be great if we implement the NEP listed above, but with a few
extensions. I think Numpy should handle the lazy evaluation part, and
determine
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Numpy is approaching a time of transition. Ralf will be concentrating his
efforts on Scipy
I'll write a separate
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/04/2012 09:06 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Mike Hansenmhan...@gmail.com wrote:
In trying to upgrade NumPy within Sage, we notices some differences in
behavior between 1.5
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Numpy is approaching a time of
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2012 14:58, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be great if we implement the NEP listed above, but with a few
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Monday, June 4, 2012, Chris Barker wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Patrick Redmond plredm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here's how I sorted
Would lazy eval be able to eliminate temps in doing operations such as:
np.sum (u != 23)?
That is, now ops involving selecting elements of matrixes are often performed
by
first constructing temp matrixes, and the operating on them.
___
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
I don't think that would work, because looking more closely, I don't
think they're actually doing anything like what
__array_interface__/PEP3118 are designed for. They just have some
custom class
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Charles R
On 5 June 2012 18:21, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
Would lazy eval be able to eliminate temps in doing operations such as:
np.sum (u != 23)?
That is, now ops involving selecting elements of matrixes are often performed
by
first constructing temp matrixes, and the operating on
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Ralf Gommers
On 5 June 2012 17:38, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2012 14:58, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Zachary Pincus zachary.pin...@yale.eduwrote:
It isn't just the array() calls which end up getting problems. For
example, in 1.5.x
sage: f = 10; type(f)
type 'sage.rings.integer.Integer'
sage: numpy.arange(f)
array([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9])
There is a fine line here. We do need to make people clean up lax code in
order to improve numpy, but hopefully we can keep the cleanups reasonable.
Oh agreed. Somehow, though, I was surprised by this, even though I keep tabs on
the numpy lists -- at no point did it become clear that big
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Zachary Pincus zachary.pin...@yale.eduwrote:
There is a fine line here. We do need to make people clean up lax code
in order to improve numpy, but hopefully we can keep the cleanups
reasonable.
Oh agreed. Somehow, though, I was surprised by this, even though
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's unfortunate that functions like logical_or are limited to
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Zachary Pincus zachary.pin...@yale.edu
wrote:
There is a fine line here. We do need to make people clean up lax code
in order to improve numpy, but hopefully we can keep the
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Zachary Pincus zachary.pin...@yale.edu
wrote:
There is a fine line here. We do need to make people clean up lax code
in order to improve numpy, but hopefully we can keep the cleanups
reasonable.
Oh agreed. Somehow, though, I was surprised by this, even
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2012 17:38, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2012 14:58, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun
On 5 June 2012 20:17, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2012 17:38, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June
On 06/05/2012 10:47 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 June 2012 20:17, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2012 17:38, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, mark florisson
On 5 June 2012 22:36, Dag Sverre Seljebotn d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/05/2012 10:47 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 June 2012 20:17, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM, mark florisson
markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2012 17:38,
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of notes from the IPython workflow in case it's of use to you
guys:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
For the commits themselves, the github button doesn't
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
There are other advantages to pulling down the patch. Fixups can be merged
together, commit comments enhanced, whitespace removed, style cleanups can
be added, tests can be run, and the PR is automatically
Can the following function be written using numpy.clip? In some other way?
Does numpy.clip satisfy condition 4 below? Does numpy.clip satisfy some
closely related condition?
Define a function clipcast:
output = clipcast(arr, dtype=None, out=None)
1. All arrays have int or float dtypes.
During the original discussion, Gael pointed out that the changes would
probably break some code (which might need to be cleaned up but still). I
think it was underestimated how quickly people would upgrade and see the
changes and therefore be able to report problems.
We are talking about
I don't think that would work, because looking more closely, I don't
think they're actually doing anything like what
__array_interface__/PEP3118 are designed for. They just have some
custom class (sage.rings.real_mpfr.RealLiteral, I guess an arbitrary
precision floating point of some
36 matches
Mail list logo
