Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy vs algebra Was: Integers to negative integer powers...

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > >> testing on stable debian box with elderly numpy, where it does behave > >> sensibly: > >> $> python -c "import numpy; print('numpy version: ', numpy.__version__); > >> a=2; b=-2; print(pow(a,b)); print(pow(numpy.array(a), b))" > >> ('numpy version:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy vs algebra Was: Integers to negative integer powers...

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > It's possible we should back off to just issuing a deprecation warning in > 1.12? > > On Jan 3, 2017 1:47 PM, "Yaroslav Halchenko" wrote: > >> hm... testing on current master (first result is from

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy vs algebra Was: Integers to negative integer powers...

It's possible we should back off to just issuing a deprecation warning in 1.12? On Jan 3, 2017 1:47 PM, "Yaroslav Halchenko" wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > > >On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko < > li...@onerussian.com> > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy vs algebra Was: Integers to negative integer powers...

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Stephan Hoyer wrote: >On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko >wrote: > Sorry for coming too late to the discussion and after PR "addressing" > the issue by issuing an error was merged [1].A I got burnt by new >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecating matrices.

There's a good chance that bokeh.charts will be split off into a separately distributed package as well. Hopefully being a much smaller, pure Python project makes it a more accessible target for anyone interested in maintaining it, and if no one is interested in it anymore, well that fact

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Default type for functions that accumulate integers

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 18:46:08 -0800 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > So some options include: > - make the default integer precision 64-bits everywhere > - make the default integer precision 32-bits on 32-bit systems, and > 64-bits on 64-bit systems (including Windows) Either of those

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecating matrices.

That's not a bad idea. Matplotlib is currently considering something similar for its mlab module. It has been there since the beginning, but it is very outdated and very out-of-scope for matplotlib. However, there are still lots of code out there that depends on it. So, we are looking to split it

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecating matrices.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@` > operator is available and things seem to be moving towards Python 3, > especially in the classroom, we should consider the real

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Default type for functions that accumulate integers

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Mo, 2017-01-02 at 18:46 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Charles R Harris > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Currently functions like trace

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy vs algebra Was: Integers to negative integer powers...

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > Sorry for coming too late to the discussion and after PR "addressing" > the issue by issuing an error was merged [1]. I got burnt by new > behavior while trying to build fresh pandas release on Debian (we are >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Default type for functions that accumulate integers

On Mo, 2017-01-02 at 18:46 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Currently functions like trace use the C long type as the default > > accumulator for integer types of lesser precision: > >

[Numpy-discussion] numpy vs algebra Was: Integers to negative integer powers...

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Peter Creasey wrote: > >> I agree with Sebastian and Nathaniel. I don't think we can deviating from > >> the existing behavior (int ** int -> int) without breaking lots of existing > >> code, and if we did, yes, we would need a new integer power function. > >> I think it's