Hi,
I was gaily using np.longlong for casting to the highest available
float type when I noticed this:
In [4]: np.array([2.1], dtype=np.longlong)
Out[4]: array([2], dtype=int64)
whereas:
In [5]: np.array([2.1], dtype=np.float128)
Out[5]: array([ 2.1], dtype=float128)
This on OSX snow leopard n
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 19.02.2012 05:38, Travis Oliphant kirjoitti:
> [clip]
Sure. This list actually deserves a long writeup about that.
First, there wasn't a "Cython-refactor" of NumPy. There was a
Cython-refactor of SciPy. I'm not sure
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for this - it's very helpful.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> > The sug
Hi,
Thanks for this - it's very helpful.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> The suggestion of transitioning the NumPy core code from C to C++ has
> sparked a vigorous debate, and I thought I'd start a new thread to give my
> perspective on some of the issues raised, and descri
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>>
>> Sure. This list actually deserves a long writeup about that. First,
>> there wasn't a "Cython-refactor" of NumPy. There was a Cython-refactor of
>> SciPy. I
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Travis Oliphant
>> wrote:
>>
>> > We will need to see examples of what M
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> We will need to see examples of what Mark is talking about and clarify some
> of the compiler issues. Certainly there is some risk that once code is
> written that it will be tempting to just use it. Other approaches are
> certain
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Travis O
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>> The C/C++ discussion is just getting started. Everyone should keep in
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:29, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:06, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:06, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 21:51, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
>>>>
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 21:51, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, David Cournapeau
>>&g
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> The C/C++ discussion is just getting started. Everyone should keep in mind
> that this is not something that is going to happening quickly. This will
> be a point of discussion throughout the year. I'm not a huge supporter of
> C
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM,
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 20
Hi.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Stur
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 02/18/2012 08:52 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Sturla Molden wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 17:12 skrev Alan G Isaac > >:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > How does "stream-l
Hi, again (sorry),
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
wrote:
> On the broader topic of recruitment...sure, cython has a lower barrier
> to entry than C++. But there are many, many more C++ developers and
> resources out there than cython resources. And it likely will stay
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
>>
>>
>> Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 05:01 skrev Jason Grout :
>>
>>> On 2/17/12 9:54 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
We would have to write a C++ programming tutorial that is b
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri,
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think c++ has any significant advantage over c for high
>> performance libraries. I am not convinced by the number of people argument
>> either: it is not m
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> The OS X slaves (especially PPC) are very valuable for testing. We have an
> intern who could help keep the build-bots going if you would give her access
> to those machines.
>
> Thanks for being willing to offer them.
No proble
Hi John,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, John Hunter wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
>>
>> I di
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
> Striving for consensus does not mean that a minority
> automatically gets veto rights.
'Striving
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
>> Buildbot is used by some big projects (e.g. Python, Chromium, and
>> Mozilla), but I'm aware that several projects in the scientific/numeric
>> Python ecosystem use Jenkins (inclu
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> Matthew,
>
> What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the
> future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort
> of things that can go wrong --- it will help ensure they don
Hi,
Just for my own sake, can I clarify what you are saying here?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of design-by-committee as I haven't seen it be very
> successful in creating new technologies. It is pretty good at enforcing the
> status-quo. If I
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>> But in the very end, when agreement can't
>>> be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
>>> (This is
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>>> There
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>
>>>> Th
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a
>> combination of how the design discussions are carried out, how pull
>> requests occur, and who has commit rights.
>
> +
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > <mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 20
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Peter Wang wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>
>> Honestly - as I was saying to Alan and indirectly to Ben - any formal
>> model - at all - is preferable to the current situation. Personally, I
>> would say th
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> My analysis is fundamentally different than Matthew
> and Benjamin's for a few reasons.
>
> 1. The problem has been miscast.
> The "economic interests" of the developers *always*
> has had an apparent conflict with the economic
>
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, A
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Perry Greenfield wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> I think you put too much faith in formal systems. There are plenty of
> examples of formal governance that fail miserably. In the
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>> The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure would
>> help resolve disputes.
>
>
> How? I'm not seeing it.
> Who would have behaved differently and why?
Let's say t
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> Can you provide an example where a more formal
>> governance structure for NumPy would have meant
>> more or better code development? (Please do not
>> suggest the NA discussi
Hi,
Thanks for these interesting and specific questions.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2012 10:07 PM, Bruce Southey
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 10:07 PM, Bruce Southey wrote:
>> The one thing that gets over looked here is that there is a huge
>> diversity of users with very different skill levels. But very few
>> people have an understanding of the core code. (In fac
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> I took a look into the code to see what is causing this, and the reason is
> that nothing has ever been implemented to deal with the fields. This means
> it falls back to treating all struct dtypes as if they were a plain "void"
> dtype, wh
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the
>>>> list
>>>> for numfocus a
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>>
>>> When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list
>>> for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the
>>> other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my
>>
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would
> like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more
> information about that. John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me, Perry
> Greenfield,
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:32 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> Hi Travis,
>>
>> It is great that some resources can be spent to have people paid to
>> work on NumPy. Thank you for making that happen.
>>
>> I am slightly confused about ro
Hi Travis,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Here is the code I used to determine the coercion table of types. I first
> used *all* of the numeric_ops, narrowed it down to those with 2 inputs and 1
> output, and then determined the run-time coercion table. Then, I r
Hi,
I've also just noticed this oddity:
In [17]: np.can_cast('c', 'u1')
Out[17]: False
OK so far, but...
In [18]: np.can_cast('c', [('f1', 'u1')])
Out[18]: True
In [19]: np.can_cast('c', [('f1', 'u1')], 'safe')
Out[19]: True
In [20]: np.can_cast(np.ones(10, dtype='c'), [('f1', 'u1')])
Out[20]
Hi,
I recently noticed a change in the upcasting rules in numpy 1.6.0 /
1.6.1 and I just wanted to check it was intentional.
For all versions of numpy I've tested, we have:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> Adata = np.array([127], dtype=np.int8)
>>> Bdata = np.int16(127)
>>> (Adata + Bdata).dtype
dtype
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM, wrote:
> On 2/13/12 2:56 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> I have the impression that the Cython / SAGE team are happy with their
>> Jenkins configuration.
>
> I'm not aware of a Jenkins buildbot system for Sage, though I think
> Cyt
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering about using one of these commercial issue tracking plans for
>> NumPy and would like thoughts and comments. Both of these plans allow
>> Open Source
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Mads Ipsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am confused. Here's the reason:
>
> The following structure is a representation of N points in 3D space:
>
> U = numpy.array([[x1,y1,z1], [x1,y1,z1],...,[xn,yn,zn]])
>
> So the array U has shape (N,3). This order makes sense to me
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Skipper Seabold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is this intended?
>
> [~/]
> [1]: np.result_type(np.uint, np.int)
> [1]: dtype('float64')
I would guess so - if your system ints are 64 bit. int64 can't
contain the range for uint64, nor can uint64 contain all int64, If
there
Hi,
2011/12/5 Stéfan van der Walt :
> As for barriers to entry, improving the the nature of discourse on the
> mailing list (when it comes to thorny issues) would be good.
> Technical barriers are not that hard to breach for our community;
> setting the right social atmosphere is crucial.
I'm jus
Hi Travis,
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> There have been some wonderfully vigorous discussions over the past few
> months that have made it clear that we need some clarity about how decisions
> will be made in the NumPy community.
>
> When we were a
Yo,
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe the content could be put in
>> http://github.com/scipy/scipy.github.com so we can make pull requests
>> there?
>
>
> The sourc
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Sebastian Haase
> wrote:
>>
>> google search for: numpy browse source
>>
>> points here: http://new.scipy.org/download.html
>>
>> which talks about:
>> svn co http://svn.scipy.org/svn/numpy/trunk n
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:51 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM, David Cournapeau
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Matthew Brett
>&
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:56
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Su
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > S
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for my continued confusion here. This is numpy 1.6.1 on windows
> XP 32 bit.
>
> In [2]: np.finfo(np.float96).nmant
> Out[2]: 52
>
> In [3]: np.finfo(np.float96).nexp
> Out[3]: 15
>
>
Hi,
Sorry for my continued confusion here. This is numpy 1.6.1 on windows
XP 32 bit.
In [2]: np.finfo(np.float96).nmant
Out[2]: 52
In [3]: np.finfo(np.float96).nexp
Out[3]: 15
In [4]: np.finfo(np.float64).nmant
Out[4]: 52
In [5]: np.finfo(np.float64).nexp
Out[5]: 11
If there are 52 bits of p
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>> > Intel, gcc:
>> > 4, -2147483648
>> > PPC, gcc
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed this:
>>
>> (Intel Mac):
>>
>> In [2]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31))
>> Out[2]
Hi,
I noticed this:
(Intel Mac):
In [2]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31))
Out[2]: -2147483648
(PPC):
In [3]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31))
Out[3]: 2147483647
I assume what is happening is that the casting is handing off to the c
library, and that behavior of the c library differs on these
platforms?
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Derek Homeier
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11 Oct 2011, at 20:06, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>>
&g
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Derek Homeier
wrote:
> On 15.10.2011, at 9:42PM, Aronne Merrelli wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Continuing the exploration of float128 - can anyone e
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Chris.Barker wrote:
> On 10/31/11 6:38 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Oh, dear, I'm suffering now:
>
>>> In [12]: res> 2**31-1
>>>
Hi,
2011/10/31 Stéfan van der Walt :
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> In [8]: np.float(2**63) == 2**63
>> Out[8]: True
>>
>> In [9]: np.float(2**63) > 2**63-1
>> Out[9]: True
>>
>> In [10]: np.float64(2**63) == 2**
Hi,
I just ran into this confusing difference between np.float and np.float64:
In [8]: np.float(2**63) == 2**63
Out[8]: True
In [9]: np.float(2**63) > 2**63-1
Out[9]: True
In [10]: np.float64(2**63) == 2**63
Out[10]: True
In [11]: np.float64(2**63) > 2**63-1
Out[11]: False
In [16]: np.float64
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On 10/29/11 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>> I'm much opposed to ripping the current code out. It isn't like it is
>> (known to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis
>> on which build other options. It also s
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Berthold Höllmann
wrote:
> Matthew Brett writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
>> arbitrarily large number?
>>
>> As in
>>
>> v = int_to_float128(so
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
Thanks again for your email, I'm sure I'm not the only one who
breathes a deep sigh of relief when I see your posts.
> I appreciate Nathaniel's idea to pull the changes and I can respect his
> desire to do that. It seemed like ther
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
>>>
>>> Here are my needs:
>>>
>>> 1) How NAs are implemented cannot be end user visible. Having to pass
>>> maskna=True is a problem. I suppose a solution is to set the flag to
>>> true on every array inside of pandas so the user never
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>&g
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
> arbitrarily large number?
>
> As in
>
> v = int_to_float128(some_value)
>
> ?
>
> I'm trying things like
>
> v =
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat
;>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>&
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Han Genuit wrote:
> To be honest, you have been slandering a lot, also in previous
> discussions, to get what you wanted. This is not a healthy way of
> discussion, nor does it help in any way.
That's a severe accusation. Please quote something I said that w
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sa
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct
Hi,
Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
arbitrarily large number?
As in
v = int_to_float128(some_value)
?
I'm trying things like
v = np.float128(2**64+2)
but, because (in other threads) the float128 seems to be going through
float64 on assignment, this loses precisio
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oc
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oc
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sa
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend to pay attention to those
>> > who have made consi
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sa
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sa
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> Matt,
>
> On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
>>> Forget about rudeness or decision processes.
>>
>> No, that's a common mistake, which is to assume that any conversation
>&
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matt
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fr
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt
&
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> 2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>> > The space issues was never ignored and Mark left room for that to be
>> > addressed. Parameterized dtypes can still be added (and isn't
601 - 700 of 1080 matches
Mail list logo
