Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 21:55, Anne Archibald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/17 Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I suggested that we move it to a branch for the time being so we
can
play with it and come up with
Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]...
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
2008/8/17 Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I suggested that we move it to a branch for the time being so we can
play with it and come up
The good news is that the patch just uses of the existing code to deal with
all the tricky issues (this is why the patch is so short). By the way, sort
could be implemented with the proposed specifications, its signature would be
(i)-(i). I agree that it would be nice if that code could
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Travis E. Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The good news is that the patch just uses of the existing code to deal
with all the tricky issues (this is why the patch is so short). By the way,
sort could be implemented with the proposed specifications, its
I am sorry that our submission
http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/ticket/887 has created some
annoyance; presumably we have taken the Make contributions (e.g. code
patches), (...) by submitting a 'ticket' on the Trac pages linked below
on http://scipy.org/Developer_Zone somewhat too literally.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 19:13, Engel, Hans-Andreas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry that our submission
http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/ticket/887 has created some
annoyance; presumably we have taken the Make contributions (e.g. code
patches), (...) by submitting a 'ticket' on the
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Engel, Hans-Andreas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry that our submission
http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/ticket/887 has created some
annoyance; presumably we have taken the Make contributions (e.g. code
patches), (...) by submitting a 'ticket' on the
2008/8/17 Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I suggested that we move it to a branch for the time being so we can
play with it and come up with examples of its use.
That branch is here:
http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/numpy/branches/gen_ufuncs
Stéfan
___
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
2008/8/17 Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I suggested that we move it to a branch for the time being so we can
play with it and come up with examples of its use.
That branch is here:
http://[EMAIL
2008/8/17 Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I suggested that we move it to a branch for the time being so we can
play with it and come up with examples of its use. If you have
examples that you have already written, I would love to see them. I,
for one, am amenable to seeing this in 1.2.0, but
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 21:55, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/17 Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I suggested that we move it to a branch for the time being so we can
play with it and come up with examples of its use. If you have
examples that you have already written, I would
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 21:55, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2008/8/17 Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I suggested that we move it to a branch for the time being so we can
play with it and come up with
Numpy 1.2 is for documentation, bug fixes, and getting the new testing
framework in place. Discipline is called for if we are going to have
timely releases.
We also agreed to a change in the C-API (or at least did not object too
loudly). I'm in favor of minimizing that sort of change.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Numpy 1.2 is for documentation, bug fixes, and getting the new testing
framework in place. Discipline is called for if we are going to have timely
releases.
First, all your points are very valid. And I apologize for
Can we fix the ticket notification mailings some day? It's been almost
four months now.
That would be fabulous. So far nobody has figured out how... Jarrod??
Re: the patch. I noticed the replacement of the signed type int by an
unsigned size_t.
Where did you notice this? I didn't see
Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
Can we fix the ticket notification mailings some day? It's been almost
four months now.
That would be fabulous. So far nobody has figured out how... Jarrod??
Re: the patch. I noticed the replacement of the signed type int by an
unsigned size_t.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Travis E. Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
Can we fix the ticket notification mailings some day? It's been almost
four months now.
That would be fabulous. So far nobody has figured out how... Jarrod??
Re: the patch. I
On Aug 15, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
The inline keyword also tends to be gcc/icc specific, although it
is part of the C99 standard.
For reference, a page on using inline and doing so portably:
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2003/03/inline.html
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Andrew Dalke [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
The inline keyword also tends to be gcc/icc specific, although it
is part of the C99 standard.
For reference, a page on using inline and doing so portably:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we fix the ticket notification mailings some day? It's been almost four
months now.
It should work now. Let me know if you aren't getting them now.
--
Jarrod Millman
Computational Infrastructure for Research Labs
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we fix the ticket notification mailings some day? It's been almost
four
months now.
It should work now. Let me know if you aren't
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Travis E. Oliphant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The biggest reason is that the patch requires changing the C-API and we
are already doing that for 1.2. I would rather not do it again for
another 6 months at least. I don't think we should make the patch wait
Stefan,
I notice that you have merged some new ufunc infrastructure. I think these
sort of things should be discussed and reviewed on the list before being
committed. Could you explain what the purpose of these patches is? The
commit messages are rather skimpy.
Chuck
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 22:45, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan,
I notice that you have merged some new ufunc infrastructure. I think these
sort of things should be discussed and reviewed on the list before being
committed. Could you explain what the purpose of these patches
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 22:45, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan,
I notice that you have merged some new ufunc infrastructure. I think
these
sort of things should be discussed and reviewed on the list
Hi Charles
2008/8/14 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Re: the patch. I noticed the replacement of the signed type int by an
unsigned size_t. This is a risky sort of thing and needs to be checked. Nor
is it clear we should use size_t instead of one of the python or numpy
types. The use of
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hi Charles
2008/8/14 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Re: the patch. I noticed the replacement of the signed type int by an
unsigned size_t. This is a risky sort of thing and needs to be checked.
Nor
is it
27 matches
Mail list logo
