On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Joe Kington wrote:
> That's certainly a potential source of confusion. However, I can't seem to
> come up with a better name for the kwarg. Matlab's "unique" function has a
> "rows" option, which is probably a more intuitive name, but doesn't imply
> the expansion
On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ...
>>
>>
>> However, my first interpretation of an axis argument in unique would
>> be that it treats each column (or whatever along axis) separately.
>> Analogously to max, argmax and similar.
>
>
> Good point!
>
> That's certainly a potential
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Skipper Seabold wrote:
>
> +1 on scipy.finance / scipy.financial (or even numpy.finance /
> numpy.financial)
Are there no external libraries that deal with these things? If they
exist, we can deprecate with two releases pointing to that external
source.
Factorin
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> However, my first interpretation of an axis argument in unique would
>>> be that it treats each column (or whatever along axis) separately.
>>> Analogously to max, a
On 20 Aug 2013 12:09, wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> However, my first interpretation of an axis argument in unique would
> >>> be that it treats each column (or what
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2013 12:09, wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> > On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> However, my first interpretation of an axis
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:47 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On 20 Aug 2013 12:09, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> > On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ...
>>> >>>
>>>
On 20 Aug 2013 12:53, wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:47 AM, wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >> On 20 Aug 2013 12:09, wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith
wrote:
> >>> > On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
> >>>
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this
anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just
that
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
> time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
> provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this
> anymore. It doe
You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do.
Tom
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau"
mailto:courn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
mailto:ralf.gomm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom wrote:
> You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do.
>
With which compiler ?
David
>
> Tom
>
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Build
Ralf,
Thanks for doing all this!
> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
> time-consuming.
It sure would be nice to clean that up.
For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
> provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this
> any
llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up tomorrow
when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use xcrun.
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau"
mailto:courn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom
mailto:tom
y works, that would be helpful.
>
> Any concerns, objections?
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-dis
gt;> So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal
>> binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries.
>> We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a
>> hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow a
>
> To me, `unique_rows` sounds perfect. To go along columns: unique_rows(A.T)
>
Stéfan
Personally, I like this idea as well. A separate `unique_rows` function,
which potentially takes an `axis` argument. (Alternately,
`unique_sequences` wouldn't imply a particular axis.)
Of course, the obvi
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KACVINSKY Tom wrote:
> llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up
> tomorrow when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use
> xcrun.
>
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2
Thanks Warren,
ok,
I will pay more atention in the next time and address correctly.
abs,
Koblitz
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:17 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
>> time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
>> provide binaries f
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote:
>
> This would be an appropriate time I suppose to say I am attempting to
> build numpy, scipy and matplotlib on 10.9. NDA of course prohibits me
> (unfortunately) from really discussing things but safe to say I would
> support "moving on". Th
21 matches
Mail list logo
