Hi,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Sturla Molden stu...@molden.no wrote:
Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 05:01 skrev Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com:
On 2/17/12 9:54 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
We would have to
Hi, again (sorry),
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On the broader topic of recruitment...sure, cython has a lower barrier
to entry than C++. But there are many, many more C++ developers and
resources out there than cython resources. And it
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted franc...@continuum.io wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But in the very end, when agreement can't
be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
Hi,
Just for my own sake, can I clarify what you are saying here?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I'm not a big fan of design-by-committee as I haven't seen it be very
successful in creating new technologies. It is pretty good at enforcing the
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Matthew,
What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the
future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort
of things that can go wrong --- it will help
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
Striving for consensus does not mean that a minority
automatically gets veto rights.
'Striving
Hi John,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, John Hunter jdh2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
I disagree.
Failure
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
The OS X slaves (especially PPC) are very valuable for testing. We have an
intern who could help keep the build-bots going if you would give her access
to those machines.
Thanks for being willing to offer
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:07 PM, Bruce Southey wrote:
The one thing that gets over looked here is that there is a huge
diversity of users with very different skill levels. But very few
people have an understanding of the core
Hi,
Thanks for these interesting and specific questions.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaacalan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:07 PM, Bruce Southey
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you provide an example where a more formal
governance structure for NumPy would have meant
more or better code development? (Please do not
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
My analysis is fundamentally different than Matthew
and Benjamin's for a few reasons.
1. The problem has been miscast.
The economic interests of the developers *always*
has had an apparent conflict with the
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Peter Wang pw...@streamitive.com wrote:
On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Honestly - as I was saying to Alan and indirectly to Ben - any formal
model - at all - is preferable to the current situation. Personally, I
would say that making
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a
combination of how the design discussions are carried out, how pull
requests occur, and who has
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
There certainly
Hi Travis,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Here is the code I used to determine the coercion table of types. I first
used *all* of the numeric_ops, narrowed it down to those with 2 inputs and 1
output, and then determined the run-time coercion
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:32 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
Hi Travis,
It is great that some resources can be spent to have people paid to
work on NumPy. Thank you for making that happen.
I am slightly confused
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would
like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more
information about that. John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me,
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list
for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the
other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the
list
for numfocus and then I signed everyone up
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
I took a look into the code to see what is causing this, and the reason is
that nothing has ever been implemented to deal with the fields. This means
it falls back to treating all struct dtypes as if they were a plain
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
I'm wondering about using one of these commercial issue tracking plans for
NumPy and would like thoughts and comments. Both of
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM, jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 2/13/12 2:56 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
I have the impression that the Cython / SAGE team are happy with their
Jenkins configuration.
I'm not aware of a Jenkins buildbot system for Sage, though I think
Cython uses
Hi,
I recently noticed a change in the upcasting rules in numpy 1.6.0 /
1.6.1 and I just wanted to check it was intentional.
For all versions of numpy I've tested, we have:
import numpy as np
Adata = np.array([127], dtype=np.int8)
Bdata = np.int16(127)
(Adata + Bdata).dtype
dtype('int8')
Hi,
I've also just noticed this oddity:
In [17]: np.can_cast('c', 'u1')
Out[17]: False
OK so far, but...
In [18]: np.can_cast('c', [('f1', 'u1')])
Out[18]: True
In [19]: np.can_cast('c', [('f1', 'u1')], 'safe')
Out[19]: True
In [20]: np.can_cast(np.ones(10, dtype='c'), [('f1', 'u1')])
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Mads Ipsen madsip...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am confused. Here's the reason:
The following structure is a representation of N points in 3D space:
U = numpy.array([[x1,y1,z1], [x1,y1,z1],...,[xn,yn,zn]])
So the array U has shape (N,3). This order makes
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Skipper Seabold jsseab...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is this intended?
[~/]
[1]: np.result_type(np.uint, np.int)
[1]: dtype('float64')
I would guess so - if your system ints are 64 bit. int64 can't
contain the range for uint64, nor can uint64 contain all
Hi,
2011/12/5 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za:
As for barriers to entry, improving the the nature of discourse on the
mailing list (when it comes to thorny issues) would be good.
Technical barriers are not that hard to breach for our community;
setting the right social atmosphere is
Hi Travis,
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Travis Oliphant teoliph...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
There have been some wonderfully vigorous discussions over the past few
months that have made it clear that we need some clarity about how decisions
will be made in the NumPy community.
Yo,
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Maybe the content could be put in
http://github.com/scipy/scipy.github.com so we can make pull requests
there?
The source is here
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Sebastian Haase seb.ha...@gmail.com
wrote:
google search for: numpy browse source
points here: http://new.scipy.org/download.html
which talks about:
svn co
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:51 AM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Matthew Brett
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:25
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for my continued
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:57
Hi,
Sorry for my continued confusion here. This is numpy 1.6.1 on windows
XP 32 bit.
In [2]: np.finfo(np.float96).nmant
Out[2]: 52
In [3]: np.finfo(np.float96).nexp
Out[3]: 15
In [4]: np.finfo(np.float64).nmant
Out[4]: 52
In [5]: np.finfo(np.float64).nexp
Out[5]: 11
If there are 52 bits of
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for my continued confusion here. This is numpy 1.6.1 on windows
XP 32 bit.
In [2]: np.finfo(np.float96).nmant
Out[2]: 52
In [3]: np.finfo(np.float96).nexp
Out[3]: 15
In [4]: np.finfo
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I noticed this:
(Intel Mac):
In [2]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31))
Out[2]: -2147483648
(PPC):
In [3]: np.int32
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Intel, gcc:
4, -2147483648
PPC, gcc:
4, 2147483647
Hi,
I noticed this:
(Intel Mac):
In [2]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31))
Out[2]: -2147483648
(PPC):
In [3]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31))
Out[3]: 2147483647
I assume what is happening is that the casting is handing off to the c
library, and that behavior of the c library differs on these
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Chris.Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On 10/31/11 6:38 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Matthew Brettmatthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Oh, dear, I'm suffering now:
In [12]: res 2**31-1
Out[12]: array([False],
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Derek Homeier
de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de wrote:
On 15.10.2011, at 9:42PM, Aronne Merrelli wrote:
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
Continuing the exploration of float128 - can anyone explain
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Derek Homeier
de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de wrote:
On 11 Oct 2011, at 20:06, Matthew Brett
Hi,
I just ran into this confusing difference between np.float and np.float64:
In [8]: np.float(2**63) == 2**63
Out[8]: True
In [9]: np.float(2**63) 2**63-1
Out[9]: True
In [10]: np.float64(2**63) == 2**63
Out[10]: True
In [11]: np.float64(2**63) 2**63-1
Out[11]: False
In [16]:
Hi,
2011/10/31 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
In [8]: np.float(2**63) == 2**63
Out[8]: True
In [9]: np.float(2**63) 2**63-1
Out[9]: True
In [10]: np.float64(2**63) == 2**63
Out[10]: True
In [11
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Travis Oliphant
oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
Here are my needs:
1) How NAs are implemented cannot be end user visible. Having to pass
maskna=True is a problem. I suppose a solution is to set the flag to
true on every array inside of pandas so the user
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Travis Oliphant
oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
Thanks again for your email, I'm sure I'm not the only one who
breathes a deep sigh of relief when I see your posts.
I appreciate Nathaniel's idea to pull the changes and I can respect his
desire to do that.
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Berthold Höllmann
berth...@xn--hllmanns-n4a.de wrote:
Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
arbitrarily large number?
As in
v = int_to_float128(some_value)
?
I'm trying
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On 10/29/11 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
I'm much opposed to ripping the current code out. It isn't like it is
(known to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis
on which build other
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
Matt,
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Forget about rudeness or decision processes.
No, that's a common mistake, which is to assume that any conversation
about things which
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Hi,
Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
arbitrarily large number?
As in
v = int_to_float128(some_value)
?
I'm trying things like
v = np.float128(2**64+2)
but, because (in other threads) the float128 seems to be going through
float64 on assignment, this loses
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Han Genuit hangen...@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest, you have been slandering a lot, also in previous
discussions, to get what you wanted. This is not a healthy way of
discussion, nor does it help in any way.
That's a severe accusation. Please quote
...@ou.edu wrote:
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett
matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone think of a good way to set a float128 value to an
arbitrarily large number?
As in
v = int_to_float128(some_value)
?
I'm trying things like
v = np.float128(2**64+2)
but, because
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com
wrote:
That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Chris.Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On 10/27/11 7:51 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
As I mentioned. I find the ability to separate an ABSENT idea from an
IGNORED idea convincing. In other words, I think distinguishing between
masks and bit-patterns is
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Charles R Harris
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Summarizing: let's forget for a moment that mask has a meaning in english:
This is at the core of the problem. You and I know what's really
going on - there's a mask over the data. But in what follows we're
going to try and
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
You and I know that I've got an array with values [99, 100, 3] and a
mask with values [False, False, True]. So maybe I'd like to see what
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com
wrote:
I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very
specific feedback that was helpful in understanding other perspectives of a
difficult
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com
wrote:
I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very
specific
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com
wrote:
I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
The space issues was never ignored and Mark left room for that to be
addressed.
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
So, I am very interested in making sure I remember the details of the
counterproposal. What I recall is that you wanted to be able to
differentiate between a bit-pattern mask and a boolean-array mask in the
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess from your answer that such a warning would be complicated to
implement, and if that's the case, I can imagine it would be low
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
So, I am very interested in making sure I remember the details of the
counterproposal. What I recall is that you wanted to be able to
differentiate between a bit-pattern mask and a boolean-array mask in the
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I just ran into this on a PPC machine:
In [1]: import numpy as np
In [2]: np.__version__
Out[2]: '2.0.0.dev
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
25.10.2011 06:59, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
res = np.longdouble(2)**64
res-1
36893488147419103231.0
Can you check if long double works properly (not a given) in C on that
platform:
long double x;
x
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
I'm afraid I find this whole thread very unpleasant.
I have the odd impression of being back at high school. Some of the
big kids are pushing me around and then the other kids join in.
It didn't have
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
25.10.2011 06:59, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
res
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
25.10.2011 19:45, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
[clip]
or, in case the platform doesn't have powl:
long double x;
x = pow(2, 64);
x -= 1;
printf(%g %Lg\n, (double)x, x);
Both the same
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
I'm afraid I find this whole thread very
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Derek Homeier
de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de wrote:
On 25 Oct 2011, at 20:05, Matthew Brett wrote:
Both the same as numpy:
[mb312@jerry ~]$ gcc test.c
test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:5: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
25.10.2011 20:29, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
[clip]
In [7]: (res-1) / 2**32
Out[7]: 8589934591.98
In [8]: np.float((res-1) / 2**32)
Out[8]: 4294967296.0
Looks like a bug in the C library installed
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
25.10.2011 20:29, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
[clip]
In [7
Hi,
Thank you for your gracious email.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
It is a shame that Nathaniel and perhaps Matthew do not feel like their
voice was heard. I wish I could have participated more fully in some of
the discussions. I don't
Hi,
I just ran into this on a PPC machine:
In [1]: import numpy as np
In [2]: np.__version__
Out[2]: '2.0.0.dev-4daf949'
In [3]: res = np.longdouble(2)**64
In [4]: res
Out[4]: 18446744073709551616.0
In [5]: 2**64
Out[5]: 18446744073709551616L
In [6]: res-1
Out[6]: 36893488147419103231.0
601 - 700 of 1028 matches
Mail list logo
