Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: [...] >> Anyway, it sounds like we agree that the next step is to merge >> multiarray and umath, so possibly we should worry about

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

Hello, sorry for replying in the wrong thread, but I don't find an appropriate message to reply to in the original one. On 08/10/15 09:10, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hiding symbols is the only advantage that I'm aware of, and as noted > in the other thread there do exist other solutions. Indeed,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:52 AM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> [splitting this off into a new thread] > >> > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

On 10/08/2015 03:30 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Nathaniel Smith > wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:52 AM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

PR #6429 is a preliminary cut at removing single file build support. A bit of cleanup remains, mostly rearranging some defines for style. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

Re: [Numpy-discussion] method to calculate the magnitude squared

Hi Phillip, My advice would be to stick with the function call. It's consistent with most other array operations (esp. when you consider that the vast majority of operations on arrays are functions defined in third party libraries like yours), and the more things we add to the core array object,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Oops - maybe post3 numpy file?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm afraid I made a mistake uploading OSX wheels for numpy 1.10.0. >> Using twine to do the upload generated a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Oops - maybe post3 numpy file?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:19 PM, wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm afraid I made a mistake

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Oops - maybe post3 numpy file?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Oct 8, 2015 5:39 PM, "Charles R Harris" > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm afraid I made a mistake

[Numpy-discussion] Oops - maybe post3 numpy file?

Hi, I'm afraid I made a mistake uploading OSX wheels for numpy 1.10.0. Using twine to do the upload generated a new release - 1.10.0.post2 - containing only the wheels. I deleted that new release to avoid confusion, but now, when I try and upload the wheels to the 1.10.0 pypi release via the web

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumFOCUS fiscal sponsorship agreement

Looks good to me. This pretty exciting, actually :-) -CHB Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 7, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > Hi all, > > Now that the governance document is in place, we need to get our legal > ducks in a row by signing a fiscal sponsorship agreement

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Oops - maybe post3 numpy file?

Hi, On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Oct 8, 2015 5:39 PM, "Charles R Harris" >> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:30 PM,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Oops - maybe post3 numpy file?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > I'm afraid I made a mistake uploading OSX wheels for numpy 1.10.0. > Using twine to do the upload generated a new release - 1.10.0.post2 - > containing only the wheels. I deleted that new release to avoid >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Oops - maybe post3 numpy file?

On Oct 8, 2015 5:39 PM, "Charles R Harris" wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm afraid I made a mistake uploading OSX wheels for numpy 1.10.0. >> Using twine to do the upload generated a new

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

On Oct 8, 2015 06:30, "David Cournapeau" wrote: > [...] > > Separating the pure C code into static lib is the simple way of achieving the same goal. Essentially, you write: > > # implemented in npyinternal.a > _npy_internal_foo() > > # implemented in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Oct 8, 2015 06:30, "David Cournapeau" wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Separating the pure C code into static lib is the simple way of > achieving the same goal. Essentially, you write: > > > > #