Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > Ah! Touché! =) My last and admittedly weak defense is that I've been > writing numpy since before 1.7. =) > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Alan Isaac wrote: > >> On 2/17/2016 7:01 PM,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Fwd: Multi-distribution Linux wheels - please test

Hi, On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Freddy Rietdijk wrote: > On Nix we also had trouble with OpenBLAS 0.2.15. Version 0.2.14 did not > cause any segmentation faults so we reverted to that version. > https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/5620 > > (hopefully this time the

[Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

I've suggested a new function similar to logspace, but where you specify the start and stop points directly instead of using log(start) and base arguments: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/7255 https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/7268 ___

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Ah! Touché! =) My last and admittedly weak defense is that I've been writing numpy since before 1.7. =) On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Alan Isaac wrote: > On 2/17/2016 7:01 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > >> Notice the limitation "1D array-like". >> > > > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On 2/17/2016 7:01 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: Notice the limitation "1D array-like". http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-1.10.0/reference/generated/numpy.random.choice.html "If an int, the random sample is generated as if a was np.arange(n)" hth, Alan Isaac

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Notice the limitation "1D array-like". On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Alan Isaac wrote: > On 2/17/2016 6:48 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > >> Also fwiw, I think the 0-based, half-open interval is one of the best >> features of Python indexing and yes, I do use random

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On 2/17/2016 6:48 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: Also fwiw, I think the 0-based, half-open interval is one of the best features of Python indexing and yes, I do use random integers to index into my arrays and would not appreciate having to litter my code with "-1" everywhere.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

He was talking consistently about "random integers" not "random_integers()". :-) On Wednesday, 17 February 2016, G Young wrote: > Your statement is a little self-contradictory, but in any case, you > shouldn't worry about random_integers getting removed from the code-base.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

LOL "random integers" != "random_integers". =D On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:52 AM, G Young wrote: > Your statement is a little self-contradictory, but in any case, you > shouldn't worry about random_integers getting removed from the code-base. > However, it has been

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Your statement is a little self-contradictory, but in any case, you shouldn't worry about random_integers getting removed from the code-base. However, it has been deprecated in favor of randint. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > Also fwiw, I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Also fwiw, I think the 0-based, half-open interval is one of the best features of Python indexing and yes, I do use random integers to index into my arrays and would not appreciate having to litter my code with "-1" everywhere. On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Alan Isaac

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On 2/17/2016 3:42 PM, Robert Kern wrote: random.randint() was the one big exception, and it was considered a mistake for that very reason, soft-deprecated in favor of random.randrange(). randrange also has its detractors: https://code.activestate.com/lists/python-dev/138358/ and following. I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] GSoC?

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > Apparetnly, NumFocus is applyign to be a GSoC Umbrella org as well: > > https://github.com/numfocus/gsoc > > Not sure why one might choose NumFocus vs PSF... > > No reason to choose, you can get students from both

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 21:53 +, G Young wrote: > "Explicit is better than implicit" - can't argue with that. It > doesn't seem like the PR has gained much traction, so I'll close it. > Thanks for the effort though! Sometimes we get a bit carried away with doing fancy stuff, and I guess the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

"Explicit is better than implicit" - can't argue with that. It doesn't seem like the PR has gained much traction, so I'll close it. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 22:10 +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote: > > On Mi, 2016-02-17

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 22:10 +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 20:48 +, Robert Kern wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:43 PM, G Young > > wrote: > > > > > Josef: I don't think we are making people think more. They're > > > all > > keyword arguments, so

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:58 PM, G Young wrote: > I sense that this issue is now becoming more of "randint has become too > complicated" I suppose we could always "add" more functions that present > simpler interfaces, though if you really do want simple, there's always >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 20:48 +, Robert Kern wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:43 PM, G Young wrote: > > > Josef: I don't think we are making people think more. They're all > keyword arguments, so if you don't want to think about them, then you > leave them as the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

I sense that this issue is now becoming more of "randint has become too complicated" I suppose we could always "add" more functions that present simpler interfaces, though if you really do want simple, there's always Python's random library you can use. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Robert

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:43 PM, G Young wrote: > Josef: I don't think we are making people think more. They're all keyword arguments, so if you don't want to think about them, then you leave them as the defaults, and everyone is happy. I believe that Josef has the code's

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PyData Madrid

On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 20:59 +0100, Jaime Fernández del Río wrote: > Hi all, > > I just found out there is a PyData Madrid happening in early April, > and it would feel wrong not to go, it being my hometown and all. > > Aside from the usual "Who else is going? We should meet!" I was also >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Joe: fair enough. A separate function seems more reasonable. Perhaps it was a wording thing, but you kept saying "wrapper," which is not the same as a separate function. Josef: I don't think we are making people think more. They're all keyword arguments, so if you don't want to think about

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Alan Isaac wrote: > > On 2/17/2016 12:28 PM, G Young wrote: >> >> Perhaps, but we are not coding in Haskell. We are coding in Python, and >> the standard is that the endpoint is excluded, which renders your point >> moot I'm afraid. > > I am

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On 2/17/2016 12:28 PM, G Young wrote: Perhaps, but we are not coding in Haskell. We are coding in Python, and the standard is that the endpoint is excluded, which renders your point moot I'm afraid. I am not sure what "standard" you are talking about. I thought we were talking about the user

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:20 PM, wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:09 PM, G Young wrote: > >> Yes, you are correct in explaining my intentions. However, as I also >> mentioned in the PR discussion, I did not quite understand how your wrapper >>

[Numpy-discussion] PyData Madrid

Hi all, I just found out there is a PyData Madrid happening in early April, and it would feel wrong not to go, it being my hometown and all. Aside from the usual "Who else is going? We should meet!" I was also thinking of submitting a proposal for a talk. My idea was to put something together

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:09 PM, G Young wrote: > Yes, you are correct in explaining my intentions. However, as I also > mentioned in the PR discussion, I did not quite understand how your wrapper > idea would make things any more comprehensive at the cost of additional >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

My point is that you are proposing to make the overall API have counter-intuitive behavior for the sake of adding a new feature. It is worth a little bit of overhead to have two functions that behave exactly as expected. Josef's footnote is a good example of how people will feel about having to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Yes, you are correct in explaining my intentions. However, as I also mentioned in the PR discussion, I did not quite understand how your wrapper idea would make things any more comprehensive at the cost of additional overhead and complexity. What do you mean by making the functions "consistent"

Re: [Numpy-discussion] GSoC?

Apparetnly, NumFocus is applyign to be a GSoC Umbrella org as well: https://github.com/numfocus/gsoc Not sure why one might choose NumFocus vs PSF... -Chris On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > [This is a complete tangent, and so I apologize in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:37 PM, wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:01 AM, G Young wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I have a PR open here that makes "low" an optional parameter in >> numpy.randint and introduces new behavior into the API as follows:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Suggestion: special-case np.array(range(...)) to be faster

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Antony Lee wrote: > So how can np.array(range(...)) even work? > range() (in py3) is not a generator, nor is is a iterator. it is a range object, which is lazily evaluated, and satisfies both the iterator protocol and the sequence

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:01 AM, G Young wrote: > Hello all, > > I have a PR open here that > makes "low" an optional parameter in numpy.randint and introduces new > behavior into the API as follows: > > 1) `low == None` and `high

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Perhaps, but we are not coding in Haskell. We are coding in Python, and the standard is that the endpoint is excluded, which renders your point moot I'm afraid. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Alan Isaac wrote: > On 2/17/2016 11:46 AM, Robert Kern wrote: > >> some at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On 2/17/2016 11:46 AM, Robert Kern wrote: some at least are 1-based indexing, so closed intervals do make sense. Haskell is 0-indexed. And quite carefully thought out, imo. Cheers, Alan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.11.0b3 released.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Andreas Mueller wrote: > > > On 02/12/2016 04:19 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > >> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/doc/release/1.11.0-notes.rst >> >> Thanks. > That doesn't cover the backward incompatible change to assert_almost_equal >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Actually, it has already been deprecated because I did it myself. :) On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Alan Isaac wrote: > > > > Behavior of random integer generation: > > Python randint[a,b]

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Alan Isaac wrote: > > Behavior of random integer generation: > Python randint[a,b] > MATLAB randi [a,b] > Mma RandomInteger [a,b] > haskell randomR [a,b] > GAUSS rndi[a,b] > Maple rand[a,b] > > In short, NumPy's

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Behavior of random integer generation: Python randint[a,b] MATLAB randi [a,b] Mma RandomInteger [a,b] haskell randomR [a,b] GAUSS rndi[a,b] Maple rand[a,b] In short, NumPy's `randint` is non-standard (and, I would add, non-intuitive). Presumably was due due to relying

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.11.0b3 released.

On 02/12/2016 04:19 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/doc/release/1.11.0-notes.rst Thanks. That doesn't cover the backward incompatible change to assert_almost_equal and assert_array_almost_equal, right? ___

Re: [Numpy-discussion] making "low" optional in numpy.randint

Hello all, I have a PR open here that makes "low" an optional parameter in numpy.randint and introduces new behavior into the API as follows: 1) `low == None` and `high == None` Numbers are generated over the range `[lowbnd, highbnd)`, where `lowbnd =

Re: [Numpy-discussion] GSoC?

[This is a complete tangent, and so I apologize in advance.] We are considering applying to GSOC for Bokeh. However, I have zero experience with GSOC, but non-zero questions (e.g. go it alone, vs apply through PSF... I think?) If anyone with experience from the mentoring organization side of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] building NumPy with gcc if Python was built with icc?!?

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, BERGER Christian wrote: > Hi All, > > > > Here's a potentially dumb question: is it possible to build NumPy with > gcc, if python was built with icc? > > Right now, the build is failing in the toolchain check phase, because gcc > doesn't