On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
I have a different question about this than the rest of the thread. I'm
confused at why there isn't a programmatic way to create a datetime dtype,
other than by going through this special string-based mini-language. I guess
I've merged a pull request from Alok Singhal which implements Robert Kern's
idea for this.
Thanks,
Mark
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I see that (current trunk):
In [9]: np.ones((1,), dtype=bool)
Out[9]: array([ True], dtype='bool')
-
On 7/28/11 4:21 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Do you know if doctests supports any sort of manual intervention, like
a plugin system?
Actually, I was going to ask you that question :)
But yes, there's the NumpyDoctest nose plugin, for example. Using it
does mean you have to customize nose
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:25:20PM -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
Well, doc tests are just a losing proposition, no one should be using
them
for writing tests. It's not like this is a new discovery,
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:25:20PM -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
Well, doc tests are just a losing proposition, no
I have a different question about this than the rest of the thread. I'm
confused at why there isn't a programmatic way to create a datetime dtype,
other than by going through this special string-based mini-language. I guess
I generally think of string-based dtype descriptors as being a legacy
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think anyone suggested that doctests should replace unit
tests; it's a bit difficult to see why that discussion started.
The conversation started because array([True], dtype=bool) changed to
array([True],
Hi,
2011/7/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think anyone suggested that doctests should replace unit
tests; it's a bit difficult to see why that discussion started.
The conversation started
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
The thread was first about how to deal with the change, and second
I'm still curious to know of a technical solution with doctests.
Ideally, one would like to specify a set of rules that a line must
pass to know
Hi,
2011/7/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
The thread was first about how to deal with the change, and second
I'm still curious to know of a technical solution with doctests.
Ideally, one would like to
Hi,
I see that (current trunk):
In [9]: np.ones((1,), dtype=bool)
Out[9]: array([ True], dtype='bool')
- whereas (1.5.1):
In [2]: np.ones((1,), dtype=bool)
Out[2]: array([ True], dtype=bool)
That is breaking quite a few doctests. What is the reason for the
change? Something to do with more
This was the most consistent way to deal with the parameterized dtype in the
repr, making it more future-proof at the same time. It was producing reprs
like array(['2011-01-01'], dtype=datetime64[D]), which is clearly wrong,
and putting quotes around it makes it work in general for all possible
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
This was the most consistent way to deal with the parameterized dtype in the
repr, making it more future-proof at the same time. It was producing reprs
like array(['2011-01-01'], dtype=datetime64[D]), which is clearly
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
This was the most consistent way to deal with the parameterized dtype in
the
repr, making it more future-proof at the same time. It was
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
This was the most consistent way to deal with the parameterized
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Mark Wiebe
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 14:47, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Mark Wiebe
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 14:47, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 14:47, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Mark Wiebe
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 14:47, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:59:17PM -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
but ultimately NumPy needs the ability to change its repr and other
details like it in order to progress as a software project.
You have to understand that numpy is the core layer on which people have
build pretty huge scientific
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:59:17PM -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
but ultimately NumPy needs the ability to change its repr and other
details like it in order to progress as a software project.
You have
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:59:17PM -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
but ultimately NumPy needs the ability to change its repr and other
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:59:17PM -0500, Mark
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:59:17PM -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
but ultimately NumPy needs the ability to change its repr and other
details like it in order to progress as a software project.
You have
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:25:20PM -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
Well, doc tests are just a losing proposition, no one should be using them
for writing tests. It's not like this is a new discovery, doc tests have
been known to be unstable for years.
Untested documentation is broken
26 matches
Mail list logo
