On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Anne Archibald apparently wrote:
This discussion risks going around in circles. Write up
your proposed solutions, with example code, in PEP style,
here:
http://www.scipy.org/ProposedEnhancements
Done: http://www.scipy.org/MatrixIndexing
I am a NumPy user, not a NumPy
On 15/04/2008, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the context of the discussion had become something
like this: there is no reason for the matrix interface to
deviate from the array interface except as needed to provide
specific desired functionality. Essentially,
On 16/04/2008, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole issue occurs because a Matrix is not a proper
container.
Right. And *that* is the case because of the attempt to
treat matrices as containers of matrices instead of as
containers of 1d arrays.
I can see no real
On 16/04/2008, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/04/2008, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole issue occurs because a Matrix is not a proper
container.
Right. And *that* is the case because of the attempt to
treat matrices as containers of
On 16/04/2008, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think of arrays as containers of anything but scalars, so I
find this whole argument from intuition extremely strange.
I see now for the first time that Matrices can't have dims 2. Grim.
I do think that ColumnVector and
This looks like something that need to go on a list for numpy 1.2. Can you
post a list of the specific problems that need to be addressed?Chuck
Maybe this post can give some hints:
All Things Pythonic
Python 3000 and You
by Guido van Rossum
March 17, 2008
Summary
I've posted the slides
Apologies for coming out of the woodwork so late here..
For blas/atlas etc in numpy scipy on an opteron I use the AMD
libraries (which only have fblas) together with cblas. This works very
well.
Current-ish SVN (v4779) in line 295-296 of numpy/core/setup.py has:
if
On 16/04/2008, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Charles R Harris
Oh, and making the transition will be made a lot easier by having a complete
set of tests. Getting the tests and documentation into good state might be
the best focus for our 1.2
Tim Michelsen wrote:
This looks like something that need to go on a list for numpy 1.2. Can you
post a list of the specific problems that need to be addressed?Chuck
Maybe this post can give some hints:
All Things Pythonic
Python 3000 and You
by Guido van Rossum
March 17, 2008
George Nurser wrote:
Apologies for coming out of the woodwork so late here..
For blas/atlas etc in numpy scipy on an opteron I use the AMD
libraries (which only have fblas) together with cblas. This works very
well.
Current-ish SVN (v4779) in line 295-296 of numpy/core/setup.py has:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Stéfan van der Walt apparently wrote:
Your proposal suggests that a Matrix be a container of arrays, but it
does not address the slicing of column vectors, i.e.
x[0]
x[0,:]
x[:,0]
The only thing that changes is the handling of scalar
indices (and thus of
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/04/2008, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Charles R Harris
Oh, and making the transition will be made a lot easier by having a
complete
set of tests. Getting
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Anne Archibald apparently wrote:
My (draconian) suggestion would be to simply raise an
exception when a matrix is indexed with a scalar.
This has been suggested before. But then, why?
Again, this imposes a deviation from the behavior of
arrays that provides no gain in
On Apr 15, 2008, at 11:41, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 01:38:45AM -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
Given that the next release will be 1.1, I think it is
reasonable to
include a few additional API breaks.
-lots. I don't want to break API compatibility again no matter what
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Anne Archibald apparently wrote:
My (draconian) suggestion would be to simply raise an
exception when a matrix is indexed with a scalar.
This has been suggested before. But then, why?
Again, this
On 16/04/2008, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The rule is:
to get a submatrix,
use multiple indices.
As Anne has argued,
this is natural.
That is *not* the rule for arrays; you argued the compatibility point yourself.
As far as I know, no objections have been raised by users of
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:06:05AM -0400, Alan G Isaac wrote:
if you want a submatrix you should provide both indices
(possibly including a :).
Yes. We exactly agree on this.
Please persuade Stefan.
Alan, instead of trying blindly to persuade Stefan, please listen to his
arguments. Or
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
let us pretend A[:, 1] returns a 1D array, as you seem to
be wanting
Where did I say anything like that??
Please look at the proposal.
It affects **only** scalar indexing
(and thereby iteration).
Recall how emphatically I agreed with you:
Multiple
On 16/04/2008, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The rule is:
to get a submatrix,
use multiple indices.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
That is not the rule for arrays; you argued the compatibility point yourself.
Sorry, I do not understand.
I am saying only:
I
Hi Robert
On 16/04/2008, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The correct fix needs to be more sophisticated than removing those two
lines. We need to recognize the MKL and the GOTO BLAS and allow them,
too. It might also be worth including the appropriate subset of the
cblas code
I've built a Universal Mac binary for numpy 1.1.0. If Mac people would
kindly test it, I'd appreciate any feedback.
Download here:
https://cirl.berkeley.edu/numpy/numpy-1.1.0rc1-py2.5-macosx10.5.dmg
Technical details:
- Built on OSX 10.5.2, Intel Core 2 Duo
- Using XCode 3.0 with gcc 4.0.1 and
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Robert
On 16/04/2008, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The correct fix needs to be more sophisticated than removing those two
lines. We need to recognize the MKL and the GOTO BLAS and allow them,
On Mittwoch 16 April 2008, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
The inclusion of those cblas routines sounds like a good idea. Could
you describe which we need, and what would be required to get this
done?
Suppose cblas gets included in numpy, but for some reason someone decides to
link another copy
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Stéfan van der Walt apparently wrote:
Do you think that a (column) vector should convert to a 1d
array?
Yes: for consistency with row vector conversion,
and for indexing consistency.
Again, I understand what you have done, and it addresses
my core issue. I do not object
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Stéfan van der Walt apparently wrote:
I showed you exactly where your proposal breaks down --
numerous times: x[0] is no longer the same as x[0,:]
And as I explained back: this is a good thing (TM).
There is no need for these to be the same.
I also gave you the simple
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Andreas Klöckner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mittwoch 16 April 2008, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
The inclusion of those cblas routines sounds like a good idea. Could
you describe which we need, and what would be required to get this
done?
Suppose cblas
On 17/04/2008, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a breakdown.
It is the proposal:
restore the proper behavior of x[0],
but keep submatrix extraction **exactly**
the same as it is now (for nonscalar indexes).
What it gains is that x[i][j] == x[i,j].
As the patch I sent
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 06:02:53PM -0400, Alan G Isaac wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Stéfan van der Walt apparently wrote:
I showed you exactly where your proposal breaks down --
numerous times: x[0] is no longer the same as x[0,:]
And as I explained back: this is a good thing (TM).
There
On 17/04/2008, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/04/2008, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a breakdown.
It is the proposal:
restore the proper behavior of x[0],
but keep submatrix extraction **exactly**
the same as it is now (for nonscalar
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Gael Varoquaux apparently wrote:
I am sorry, I don't see why you prioritize x[i][j] == x[i,j] (1) more than
x[0] == x[0,:] (2).
Well the quick answer is:
use matrices for awhile,
and I expect you will see why,
and teach them for awhile, and
I am quite sure you will see
Alan G Isaac wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Gael Varoquaux apparently wrote:
I am sorry, I don't see why you prioritize x[i][j] == x[i,j] (1) more than
x[0] == x[0,:] (2).
Well the quick answer is:
use matrices for awhile,
and I expect you will see why,
and teach them for awhile,
31 matches
Mail list logo
