On 21. apr. 2012, at 00:16, Drew Frank wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
Oh, right. I was thinking small as in fits in L2 cache, not small as
in a few
Hi,
I just discovered that the NA mask will modify the base ndarray
object. So I read about it to find the consequences on our c code. Up
to now I have fully read:
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/arrays.maskna.html
and partially read:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
I recall discossion a couple times in the past of having some
special-case numpy arrays for the simple, small cases -- perhaps 1-d
or 2-d C-contiguous only, for instance. That might be a better way to
address the
Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov
wrote:
I recall discossion a couple times in the past of having some
special-case numpy arrays for the simple, small cases -- perhaps 1-d
or 2-d C-contiguous only, for instance.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
I don't think you gain that much by using a different type though? Those
optimized code paths could be plugged into NumPy as well.
Could be: this was years ago, and the bottleneck for me was in the
On 04/20/2012 08:35 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
I don't think you gain that much by using a different type though? Those
optimized code paths could be plugged into NumPy as well.
Could be: this was
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
Oh, right. I was thinking small as in fits in L2 cache, not small as
in a few dozen entries.
or even two or three entries.
I often use a (2,) or (3,) numpy array to represent an (x,y) point
(usually pulled
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
Oh, right. I was thinking small as in fits in L2 cache, not small as
in a few dozen entries.
Another example of a small array
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:40:53PM -0500, Travis Oliphant wrote:
The objectors object to any binary ABI change, but not specifically
three pointers rather than two or one?
Adding pointers is not really an ABI change (but removing them after
they were there would be...) It's really just the
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Basically, there are two sets of changes as far as I understand right now:
1) ufunc infrastructure understands masked arrays
2) ndarray grew attributes to represent masked arrays
I am proposing that we
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Mark and I will have conversations about NumPy while he is in Austin.
There are many other active stake-holders whose opinions and
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Mark and I will have conversations about NumPy while he
On 04/17/2012 08:40 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Matthew Brettmatthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Travis Oliphanttra...@continuum.io
wrote:
Mark and
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad to hear that discussion is happening, but please do have it
on list. If it's off list it easy for people to feel they are being
bypassed, and that the public discussion is not important.
I'm afraid I have
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm glad to hear that discussion is happening, but please do have it
on list. If it's off list it easy for people to feel they are
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Right - but that would be an absurd overstatement of what I said.
There's no point in addressing something I didn't say and no sensible
person would think. Indeed, it makes the discussion harder.
Well, in that
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Right - but that would be an absurd overstatement of what I said.
There's no point in addressing something I didn't say and no sensible
I have never found mailing lists good places for discussion and consensus.
I think the format itself does not lend itself to involvement, carefully
considered (or the ability to change) positions, or voting since all of it
can be so easily lost within all of the quoting, the back and forth,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
There is an issue with the NumPy 1.7 release that we all need to
understand. Doesn't including the missing-data attributes in the NumPy
structure in a released version of NumPy basically commit to including
those
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's the first time I've heard this. Until now, we have talked a lot about
adding bitmasks and API changes, not about complete removal. My assumption
was that the experimental label was enough. From Nathaniel's
No off list discussions have been happening material to this point. I am
basically stating my view for the first time. I have delayed because I realize
it is not a pleasant view and I was hoping I could end up resolving it
favorably.
But, it needs to be discussed before 1.7 is released.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
No off list discussions have been happening material to this point. I am
basically stating my view for the first time. I have delayed because I
realize it is not a pleasant view and I was hoping I could end up
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's the first time I've heard this. Until now, we have talked a lot
about
adding bitmasks and API changes, not about complete
The comments I have heard have been from people who haven't wanted to make them
on this list. I wish they would, but I understand that not everyone wants to
be drawn into a long discussion.They have not been discussions.
My bias is to just move forward with what is there. After a week
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
The comments I have heard have been from people who haven't wanted to make
them on this list. I wish they would, but I understand that not everyone
wants to be drawn into a long discussion.They have not been
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I have heard from a few people that they are not excited by the growth of
the NumPy data-structure by the 3 pointers needed to hold the masked-array
storage. This is especially true when there is talk to
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I have heard from a few people that they are not excited by the growth of
the NumPy data-structure by the 3 pointers needed to
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Apr 16, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I have heard from a few people that they are not excited by the growth of
the
Ralf,
I wouldn't change your plans just yet for NumPy 1.7. With Mark available full
time for the next few weeks, I think we will be able to make rapid progress on
whatever is decided -- in fact if people are available to help but just need
resources let me know off list.
I just want to
I think the answer to this is yes, but it could be as a feature-filled
sub-class (like the current numpy.ma, except in C).
I'd love to hear that argument fleshed out in more detail - do you have time?
My proposal here is to basically take the current github NumPy data-structure
and make
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
On Apr 16, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
I have heard from a few people that they are not excited by the growth
of
On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Apr 16, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
I have heard
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I think the answer to this is yes, but it could be as a feature-filled
sub-class (like the current numpy.ma, except in C).
I'd love to hear that argument fleshed out in more detail - do you have time?
My
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.iowrote:
On Apr 16, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012
On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:59 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I think the answer to this is yes, but it could be as a feature-filled
sub-class (like the current numpy.ma, except in C).
I'd love to hear that argument
35 matches
Mail list logo
