On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 07:17:42PM +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Is there anything better to do than simply revert np.copy() to its
traditional behaviour and accept that np.copy(a) and a.copy() will
continue
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 07:17:42PM +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Is there anything better to do than simply revert np.copy() to its
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 07:17:42PM +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Is there anything better to do than simply revert np.copy() to its
traditional behaviour and accept that np.copy(a) and a.copy() will
continue to have different semantics indefinitely?
Have np.copy take an 'order=None', which
As always, I think it is better to don't change the default behaviour.
There is many people that don't update frequently and 2 releases is
not enough. This will lead to many hard to find bug. This will also
give the impression what we can't rely on numpy default behaviour and
numpy is not stable.
