On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Mark Wiebe
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gael Varoquaux
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
Would anyone object to, at least temporarily, tightening up the
default
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 10:43:45PM +0200, Ralf Gommers wrote:
four in scikit-learn (plus two that don't
look related),
Yeah, some of these failures are due to numerical unstabilities in tests
(nasty ones, still fighting) and some simply to crappy code (HMMs are
hopeless :( ).
Now, with
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 10:43:45PM +0200, Ralf Gommers wrote:
four in scikit-learn (plus two that don't
look related),
Yeah, some of these failures are due to numerical unstabilities in tests
(nasty
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:41:26PM -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
Now, with regards to the actual failures induced by the new
branch, it took me a while to understand why they where happening,
and now I realise that we probably should have explicit coercions
at these
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:41:26PM -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
Now, with regards to the actual failures induced by the new
branch, it took me a while to understand why they where happening,
Would anyone object to, at least temporarily, tightening up the default
ufunc casting rule to 'same_kind' in NumPy master? It's a one line change,
so would be easy to undo, but such a change is very desirable in my opinion.
This would raise an exception, since it's np.add(a, 1.9, out=a),
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
Would anyone object to, at least temporarily, tightening up the default
ufunc casting rule to 'same_kind' in NumPy master? It's a one line change,
so would be easy to undo, but such a change is very desirable in my
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
Would anyone object to, at least temporarily, tightening up the
default
ufunc casting rule to 'same_kind' in NumPy master? It's a one line
14 matches
Mail list logo
