Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

I'd be more than happy to write up the patch. I don't think it would be quite like make zeros be ones, but it would be along those lines. One case I need to wrap my head around is to make sure that a 0 would happen if the following was true: >>> a = np.ones((0, 5*64)) >>> a.shape = (-1, 5, 64)

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > but, it isn't really ambiguous, is it? The -1 can only refer to a single > dimension, and if you ignore the zeros in the original and new shape, the -1 > is easily solvable, right? Sure, it's totally ambiguous. These

[Numpy-discussion] ENH: `scale` parameter for `sinc`

I have created PR #7322 (https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/7322) to add a scale parameter to `sinc`. What this allows is to compute `sinc` as `sin(x)/x` or really `sin(n*x)/(n*x)` for arbitrary `n` instead of just `sin(pi*x)/(pi*x)` as is being done now. The parameter accepts two string

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ENH: `scale` parameter for `sinc`

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz wrote: > P.S. I would like to turn `sinc` into a `ufunc` at some point if the > community approves. It would make the computation much cleaner (e.g., > in-place `where`) and faster. It would also complement the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

but, it isn't really ambiguous, is it? The -1 can only refer to a single dimension, and if you ignore the zeros in the original and new shape, the -1 is easily solvable, right? Ben Root On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Warren Weckesser < warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 23,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > Not exactly sure if this should be a bug or not. This came up in a fairly > general function of mine to process satellite data. Unexpectedly, one of > the satellite files had no scans in it, triggering an exception

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

Christoph, any chance you can test https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/7324 before it gets merged (or not). Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

On Di, 2016-02-23 at 11:45 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: > but, it isn't really ambiguous, is it? The -1 can only refer to a > single dimension, and if you ignore the zeros in the original and new > shape, the -1 is easily solvable, right? I think if there is a simple logic (like using 1 for all

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm delighted to announce the release of Numpy 1.11.0rc1. Hopefully the > issues discovered in 1.11.0b3 have been dealt with and this release can go > on to become the official release. Source

[Numpy-discussion] How to check for memory leaks?

Hi All, I'm suspecting a possible memory leak in 1.11.x, what is the best way to check for that? Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > What should this do? > > np.zeros((12, 0)).reshape((10, -1, 2)) > It should error out, I already covered that. 12 != 20. Ben Root ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list

Re: [Numpy-discussion] How to check for memory leaks?

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:36:00 -0700 Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm suspecting a possible memory leak in 1.11.x, what is the best way to > check for that? If that is due to a reference leak, you can use sys.getrefcount() or weakref.ref(). Otherwise you may

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

On Di, 2016-02-23 at 21:06 +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Di, 2016-02-23 at 14:57 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: > > I'd be more than happy to write up the patch. I don't think it > > would > > be quite like make zeros be ones, but it would be along those > > lines. > > One case I need to wrap my

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

On Di, 2016-02-23 at 14:57 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: > I'd be more than happy to write up the patch. I don't think it would > be quite like make zeros be ones, but it would be along those lines. > One case I need to wrap my head around is to make sure that a 0 would > happen if the following was

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> Sure, it's totally ambiguous. These are all legal: > > > > I would argue that except for the first reshape, all of those should be an >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

that test needs about 500Mb of memory on windows as it doesn't have sparse allocations like most *nixes. It used to fail for me during release testing when I only gave the windows VM 1GB of ram. If its a problem for CI we could disable it on windows, or at least skip the complex double case. On

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Sure, it's totally ambiguous. These are all legal: I would argue that except for the first reshape, all of those should be an error, and that the current algorithm is buggy. This isn't a heuristic. It isn't guessing.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

Christoph reports the following problem that I am unable to reproduce on appveyor or find reported elsewhere. On all 32-bit platforms: ERROR: test_zeros_big (test_multiarray.TestCreation)

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

On 2/23/2016 1:05 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: 23.02.2016, 22:40, Charles R Harris kirjoitti: [clip] On all 32-bit platforms: ERROR: test_zeros_big (test_multiarray.TestCreation)

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

23.02.2016, 22:40, Charles R Harris kirjoitti: [clip] > On all 32-bit platforms: > > > ERROR: test_zeros_big (test_multiarray.TestCreation) > > Traceback (most recent call

Re: [Numpy-discussion] How to check for memory leaks?

On Di, 2016-02-23 at 12:36 -0700, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm suspecting a possible memory leak in 1.11.x, what is the best way > to check for that? > Would like to learn better methods, but I tried valgrind with trace origins and full leak check, just thinking maybe it shows

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Julian Taylor < jtaylor.deb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > that test needs about 500Mb of memory on windows as it doesn't have > sparse allocations like most *nixes. > It used to fail for me during release testing when I only gave the > windows VM 1GB of ram. > If

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

23.02.2016, 03:47, Charles R Harris kirjoitti: > I'm delighted to announce the release of Numpy 1.11.0rc1. Hopefully the > issues discovered in 1.11.0b3 have been dealt with and this release can go > on to become the official release. Source files and documentation can be > found on Sourceforge >

[Numpy-discussion] reshaping empty array bug?

Not exactly sure if this should be a bug or not. This came up in a fairly general function of mine to process satellite data. Unexpectedly, one of the satellite files had no scans in it, triggering an exception when I tried to reshape the data from it. >>> import numpy as np >>> a = np.zeros((0,