On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:14 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:33 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
Hey,
there was a discussion that for numpy booleans math operators +,-,* (and
the unary -), while defined, are not very helpful. I have set up a quick
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:02 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg sebast...@sipsolutions.net
wrote:
there was a discussion that for numpy booleans math operators +,-,*
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:02 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Alan G Isaac
alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
For + and * (and thus `dot`), this will fix something that is not broken.
It is in fact in conformance with a large literature on boolean arrays
and boolean matrices.
On 12/6/2013 3:24 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:02 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com
wrote:
On Thu,
On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
did you find minus to be as useful?
It is also a correct usage.
I think a good approach to this is to first realize that
there were good reasons for the current behavior.
Alan Isaac
___
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
did you find minus to be as useful?
It is also a correct usage.
I think a good approach to this is to first realize that
there were good reasons for the current
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
did you find minus to be as useful?
It is also a correct usage.
Can you provide a reference?
I think a good approach to this is to first realize that
there
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
did you find minus to be as useful?
It is also a correct usage.
Can you provide a
On 12/6/2013 12:23 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
What is the rationale for this:
-array(True) + array(True)
True
The minus is complementation.
So you are just writing
False or True
Alan Isaac
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
did you find minus to be as useful?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan G Isaac
It is also a correct usage.
On 12/6/2013 12:23 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
Can you provide a reference?
For use of the minus sign, I don't have one
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:23 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
What is the rationale for this:
-array(True) + array(True)
True
The minus is complementation.
So you are just writing
False or True
unary versus binary
On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
unary versus binary minus
Oh right; I consider binary `-` broken for
Boolean arrays. (Sorry Alexander; I did not
see your entire issue.)
I'd rather write ~ than unary - if that's what it is.
I agree. So I have no objection to elimination
of
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
unary versus binary minus
Oh right; I consider binary `-` broken for
Boolean arrays. (Sorry Alexander; I did not
see your entire issue.)
I'd rather write ~ than unary
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
unary versus binary minus
Oh right; I consider binary `-` broken for
Boolean arrays. (Sorry Alexander; I did not
see your entire issue.)
I'd rather write ~ than
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
unary versus binary minus
Oh right; I consider binary `-` broken for
Boolean arrays.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
unary versus binary
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com
wrote:
On 12/6/2013 3:30 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
6 `**` follows from 1.
Yes, but what really matters is that
linalg.matrix_power
give the correct (boolean) result.
Alan
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
On 12/6/2013 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg wrote:
Both of these are currently not defined, they will just cause upcast to
int8.
What does currently mean?
`**` works fine for boolean arrays in 1.7.1.
(It's useless, but it works.)
Alan Isaac
___
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:14 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6,
Not sure how much time it's worth spending on coming up with new
definitions for boolean subtraction, since even if we deprecate the
current behavior now we won't be able to implement any of them for a
year+, and then we'll end up having to go through these debates again
then anyway.
-n
On Fri,
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Not sure how much time it's worth spending on coming up with new
definitions for boolean subtraction, since even if we deprecate the
current behavior now we won't be able to implement any of them for a
year+, and then we'll
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:14 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6,
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.netwrote:
For the moment I saw one annoying change in
numpy, and that is `abs(x - y)` being used for allclose and working
nicely currently.
It would probably be an improvement if allclose returned all(x == y) unless
one of
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
Hey,
there was a discussion that for numpy booleans math operators +,-,* (and
the unary -), while defined, are not very helpful. I have set up a quick
PR with start (needs some fixes inside numpy still):
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:33 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
Hey,
there was a discussion that for numpy booleans math operators +,-,* (and
the unary -), while defined, are not very helpful. I have set up a
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg sebast...@sipsolutions.net
wrote:
there was a discussion that for numpy booleans math operators +,-,* (and
the unary -), while defined, are not very helpful.
It has been suggested at the Github that there is an area where it is
useful to have
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
what about np.dot,np.dot(mask, x) which is the same as (mask *
x).sum(0) ?
I am not sure which way your argument goes, but I don't think you would
find the following natural:
x = array([True, True])
dot(x,x)
True
(x*x).sum()
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg sebast...@sipsolutions.net
wrote:
there was a discussion that for numpy booleans math operators +,-,* (and
the unary -), while defined, are not very helpful.
It has
For + and * (and thus `dot`), this will fix something that is not broken.
It is in fact in conformance with a large literature on boolean arrays
and boolean matrices. That not everyone pays attention to this literature
does not constitute a reason to break the extant, correct behavior.
I'm sure
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
For + and * (and thus `dot`), this will fix something that is not broken.
+ and * are not broken - just redundant given | and .
What is really broken is -, both unary and binary:
int(np.bool_(0) - np.bool_(1))
1
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
what about np.dot,np.dot(mask, x) which is the same as (mask *
x).sum(0) ?
I am not sure which way your argument goes, but I don't think you would
35 matches
Mail list logo
