On Di, 2016-02-16 at 00:13 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:09 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > <skip> > > > > > > Or, it forces everyone to watch out for the color of the ducks :) > > > > It's just a number, whether it's python scalar, numpy scalar, 1D or > > 2D. > > And once we squeeze, we cannot iterate over it anymore. > > > > > > This looks like the last problem with have in statsmodels master. > > Part of the reason that 0.10 hurt quite a bit is that we are using > > in statsmodels some of the grey zones so we don't have to commit to > > a specific usage. Even if a user or developer tries a "weird" case, > > it works for most of the results, but breaks in some unknown > > places. > > > > > I meant 1.11 here. >
The reason for this part is that `arr[np.array([1])]` is very different from `arr[np.array(1)]`. For `list[np.array([1])]` if you allow `operator.index(np.array([1]))` you will not get equivalent results for lists and arrays. The normal array result cannot work for lists. We had open bug reports about it. Of course I dislike it in any case ;), but that is the reasoning behind being a bit more restrictive for `__index__`. - Sebastian > > (In the current case a cryptic exception would be raised if the > > user has two constant columns in the regression. Which is fine for > > some usecases but not for every result.) > > > > Josef > > > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > > > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
