[Numpy-discussion] testing

Let's see if the instructions enclosed in http://www.jamesh.id.au/articles/mailman-spamassassin/ which was written in 2003 are still biting us. -- Chip Parker DevOps Engineer ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Hi Travis, On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Hey all, > > I just wanted to clarify, that I am very excited about a few ideas I have > --- but I don't have time myself to engage in the community process to get > these changes into NumPy. However,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] OK to upload patched 1.9.2 for Python 3.5?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Julian Taylor > wrote: >> as due to the many incompatiblities in 1.10 many will likely not be able >> to update anytime soon, so I think putting out

Re: [Numpy-discussion] OK to upload patched 1.9.2 for Python 3.5?

On 9/14/2015 3:47 AM, Julian Taylor wrote: as due to the many incompatiblities in 1.10 many will likely not be able to update anytime soon, so I think putting out another 1.9.3 bugfix release would be a good idea. I can probably do the release management for it, though I haven't been keeping up

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [Python-ideas] Should our default random number generator be secure?

On 14/09/15 10:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Currently we don't provide those APIs on the GPU, since MT is much too costly there. If Numpy wanted to switch to a different generator, and if Numba wanted to remain compatible with Numpy, one of the PCG functions would be an excellent choice (also for

[Numpy-discussion] First release candidate for the 1.5.0 series

Please give it a try! (linux64 conda builds are available on the tacaswell anaconda.org channel) https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/releases/tag/v1.5.0rc1 This release contains many new features. The highlights include: - the object oriented API will now automatically re-draw the

[Numpy-discussion] new ufunc implementations for object arrays

Hello all, I've just submitted a PR which overhauls the implementation of ufuncs for object types. https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6320 The motivation for this is that many ufuncs (eg all transcendental functions) can't handle objects. This PR will also make object arrays more customizable,

[Numpy-discussion] testing

This would be an email. -- Chip Parker DevOps Engineer ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Hi all, Thanks, Travis, for the followup. I know some people were confused or concerned by some points in Travis’s recent emails (as was I, initially), but after checking in with Travis and the NumPy steering council, it sounds like the main points of possible confusion are actually things where

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [Python-ideas] Should our default random number generator be secure?

On 14/09/15 10:26, Robert Kern wrote: I want fast, multiple independent streams on my current hardware first, and PCG gives that to me. DCMT is good for that as well. It should be possible to implement a pluggable design of NumPy's mtrand. Basically call a function pointer instead of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [Python-ideas] Should our default random number generator be secure?

On 14/09/15 10:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote: If Numpy wanted to switch to a different generator, and if Numba wanted to remain compatible with Numpy, one of the PCG functions would be an excellent choice (also for CPU performance, incidentally). Is Apache license ok in NumPy? (Not sure, thus

Re: [Numpy-discussion] OK to upload patched 1.9.2 for Python 3.5?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Julian Taylor wrote: > as due to the many incompatiblities in 1.10 many will likely not be able > to update anytime soon, so I think putting out another 1.9.3 bugfix > release would be a good idea. > I can probably do the release

Re: [Numpy-discussion] First release candidate for the 1.5.0 series

Hi, On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Caswell wrote: > Please give it a try! (linux64 conda builds are available on the tacaswell > anaconda.org channel) > > https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/releases/tag/v1.5.0rc1 > > This release contains many new features.

[Numpy-discussion] ANN: Numexpr 2.4.4 is out

= Announcing Numexpr 2.4.4 = Numexpr is a fast numerical expression evaluator for NumPy. With it, expressions that operate on arrays (like "3*a+4*b") are accelerated and use less memory than doing the same calculation in Python. It wears

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Travis, I'm sure you appreciate that this might all look a bit scary, given the recent discussion about numpy governance. But it's an open-source project, and I, at least, fully understand that going through a big process is NOT the way to get a new idea tried out and implemented. So I think

[Numpy-discussion] ANN: python-blosc 1.2.8 released

= Announcing python-blosc 1.2.8 = What is new? This is a maintenance release. Internal C-Blosc has been upgraded to 1.7.0 (although new bitshuffle support has not been made public, as it seems not ready for production yet).

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [Python-ideas] Should our default random number generator be secure?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Sturla Molden wrote: > On 14/09/15 10:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> Currently we don't provide those APIs on the GPU, since MT is much too >> costly there. >> >> If Numpy wanted to switch to a different generator, and if Numba wanted >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] OK to upload patched 1.9.2 for Python 3.5?

Hi Christoph, On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Christoph Gohlke wrote: > On 9/14/2015 3:47 AM, Julian Taylor wrote: >> >> as due to the many incompatiblities in 1.10 many will likely not be able >> to update anytime soon, so I think putting out another 1.9.3 bugfix >> release

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Hey Chris (limiting to NumPy only), I've had some great conversations with Nathaniel in the past few days and I'm glad he posted his thoughts so that there is no confusion about governance or what I was implying. With respect to governance, I'm very supportive of what everyone is doing in

[Numpy-discussion] method to calculate the magnitude squared

In communications and signal processing, it is frequently necessary to calculate the power of a signal. This can be done with a function like the following: def magsq(z): """ Return the magnitude squared of the real- or complex-valued input. """ return z.real**2 + z.imag**2 A high

Re: [Numpy-discussion] method to calculate the magnitude squared

At 09:16 PM 9/18/2015, you wrote: In communications and signal processing, it is frequently necessary to calculate the power of a signal. This can be done with a function like the following: def magsq(z):   """   Return the magnitude squared of the real- or complex-valued input.  Â