On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Paul Ivanov pivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
So far, no one has voiced objections, so should I go ahead and check
this in?
+1 from me, at least.
I don't see how there could be a downside to fixing a ton of tests :)
Cheers,
f
So far, no one has voiced objections, so should I go ahead and check
this in?
btw, thanks Mike, what about this one:
(np.char.lstrip(c, ' ') == np.char.lstrip(c, '')).all()
... # XXX: is this a regression? this line now returns False -pi
... # np.char.lstrip(c,'') does not modify c
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Michael Droettboom md...@stsci.edu wrote:
Sorry, just commenting on the parts I feel competent in :) But I think
this is a great improvement. It would be nice to start doing doctests
as a matter of course to keep the docs accurate.
Indeed. From the
Paul Ivanov wrote:
I marked up suspicious differences with XXX, since I don't know if
they're significant. In particular:
- shortening a defchararray by strip does not change it's dtype to a
shorter one (apparently it used to?)
Yes. The new behavior is to return a string array with the same
Hi Numpy-devs,
I'm a long time listener, first time caller. I grabbed 1.4.0rc1 and was
happy that all the tests passed. But then I tried:
import numpy as np
np.test(doctests=True)
...
Ran 1696 tests in 22.027s
FAILED (failures=113, errors=24)
I looked at some of the failures,
