matplotlib would be more than happy if numpy could take those functions off
our hands! They don't get nearly the correct visibility in matplotlib
because no one is expecting them to be in a plotting library, and they
don't have any useful unit-tests. None of us made them, so we are very
hesitant
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Allan Haldane
wrote:
> I also want to add a historical note here, that 'groupby' has been
> discussed a couple times before.
>
> Travis Oliphant even made an NEP for it, and Wes McKinney lightly hinted
> at adding it to numpy.
>
>
I also want to add a historical note here, that 'groupby' has been
discussed a couple times before.
Travis Oliphant even made an NEP for it, and Wes McKinney lightly hinted
at adding it to numpy.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/37480/focus=37480
If the author is willing, I'd say both functions are useful. The "geom"
prefix is very fitting.
- Joe
-- Original message--From: Robert KernDate: Fri, Feb 19, 2016 08:00To:
Discussion of Numerical Python;Subject:Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new
logspace without the
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Andrew Nelson wrote:
>
> With respect to geomspace proposals: instead of specifying start and end
values and the number of points I'd like to have an option where I can set
the start and end points and the ratio. The function would then work
What about this API? You specify the start point, ratio, and number of
points.
http://spacepy.lanl.gov/doc/autosummary/spacepy.toolbox.geomspace.html
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Nelson andyfaff-at-gmail.com |numpy
mailing list/Example Allow| wrote:
>
With respect to geomspace proposals: instead of specifying start and end
values and the number of points I'd like to have an option where I can set
the start and end points and the ratio. The function would then work out
the correct number of points to get closest to the end value.
E.g.