Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Solbrig,Jeremy < jeremy.solb...@colostate.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > Much of what is below was copied from this stack overflow question. > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Solbrig,Jeremy < > jeremy.solb...@colostate.edu> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Much of what is below was copied from this stack overflow question. >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

Hello Chuck, I receive the same result with 1.10.4. I agree that it looks like __array_prepare__, __array_finalize__, and __array_wrap__ have not been changed. I’m starting to dig into the source again, but focusing on the _MaskedBinaryOperation class to try to understand what is going on

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Solbrig,Jeremy < jeremy.solb...@colostate.edu> wrote: > Hello Chuck, > > I receive the same result with 1.10.4. I agree that it looks like > __array_prepare__, __array_finalize__, and __array_wrap__ have not been > changed. I’m starting to dig into the source

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

Will do. Thanks for looking into this! From: NumPy-Discussion > on behalf of Charles R Harris > Reply-To: Discussion of Numerical Python

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

On Di, 2016-01-26 at 17:27 +, Solbrig,Jeremy wrote: > Hello Chuck, > > I receive the same result with 1.10.4. I agree that it looks like > __array_prepare__, __array_finalize__, and __array_wrap__ have not > been changed. I’m starting to dig into the source again, but > focusing on the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

The problem isn’t specifically with _optinfo. _optinfo losing information is just a symptom of the fact that __array_prepare__, __array_wrap__, and __array_finalize__ do not appear to be working as documented. So far as I can tell, there is no way to access attributes of subclasses when using

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

New issue submitted here: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/7122 I suggest moving this discussion there. On 1/26/16, 10:49 AM, "NumPy-Discussion on behalf of Solbrig,Jeremy" wrote: >The problem isn’t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Di, 2016-01-26 at 17:27 +, Solbrig,Jeremy wrote: > > Hello Chuck, > > > > I receive the same result with 1.10.4. I agree that it looks like > > __array_prepare__, __array_finalize__, and __array_wrap__

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:13 AM, G Young wrote: > Ah, yes, that is true. That point had completely escaped my mind. In > light of this, it seems that it's not worth the while then to completely > switch over to pip + virtualenv. It's might be better actually to rewrite >

[Numpy-discussion] Testing warnings

Hi all, so I have been thinking about this a little more, and I do not think there is a truly nice solution to the python bug: http://bugs.python.org/issue4180 (does not create problems for new pythons). However, I have been so annoyed by trying to test FutureWarnings or DeprecationWarnings in

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

Hi All, I'm pleased to announce that Numpy 1.11.0b1 is now available on sourceforge. This is a source release as the mingw32 toolchain is broken. Please test it out and report any errors that you discover. Hopefully we can do better

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

Hi Chuck, > I'm pleased to announce that Numpy 1.11.0b1 is now available on sourceforge. > This is a source release as the mingw32 toolchain is broken. Please test it > out and report any errors that you discover. Hopefully we can do better with > 1.11.0 than we did with 1.10.0 ;) the tarball

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

Perhaps a pip + virtualenv build as well since that's one way that is mentioned in the online docs for installing source code. I can't think of anything else beyond that and what you suggested for the time being. Greg On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Derek Homeier < de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > > I'm pleased to announce that Numpy 1.11.0b1 is now available on > sourceforge. This is a source release as the mingw32 toolchain is broken. > Please test it out and report any errors

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Derek Homeier < > de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote: > >> Hi Chuck, >> >> > I'm pleased to announce that Numpy 1.11.0b1 is now available on >> sourceforge. This

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Derek Homeier < >> de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi