Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Peter Wang 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 the founder of a com

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >> wrote: >> > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >>> >>> Your points are well taken.   However, my point is that this has been >>> discussed on an open mailing list.   Things weren't *as* open as they could >>> have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection.  But, there was >>> opportun

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >>  wrote: >>> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: There certainly is governance now, it's just informal.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > 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 p

Re: [Numpy-discussion] strange behavior of numpy.random.multivariate_normal, ticket:1842

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:52 PM, wrote: > Doing a bit of browsing in the numpy tracker, I found this. From my > search this was not discussed on the mailing list. > > http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1842 > > The multivariate normal random sample is not always the same, even > though a see

[Numpy-discussion] strange behavior of numpy.random.multivariate_normal, ticket:1842

Doing a bit of browsing in the numpy tracker, I found this. From my search this was not discussed on the mailing list. http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1842 The multivariate normal random sample is not always the same, even though a seed is specified. It seems to alternate randomly between

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >>> >>>     Hi, >>> >>>     On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM,   wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >>> wrote: On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >> wrote: >>> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn 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 commit rights. > > +

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wro

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: > > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 15,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: >> >>     Hi, >> >>     On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe >    

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: >> >>     Hi, >> >>     On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe >    

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PyArray_FromAny() steals a reference to PyArray_Descr* dtype

Yes, the PyArray_FromAny steals a reference to the dtype object. This is done so you can build one on the fly doing something like PyArray_DescrFromType(NPY_DOUBLE) inline with the PyArray_FromAny call. -Travis On Feb 15, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Larsen, Brian A wrote: > Hello all, > > the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

>On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Perry Greenfield wrote: >> On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> My 2 cents. >> >> [...] I am both elated and concerned. Since it's obvious what there is to be elated about, this post has a "concerned" tone. But overall, I think th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/12 3:25 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > 4) It is possible for Continuum to want features that are good for > Continuum, but bad for the code-base in general. For example, > Continuum may have some product that requires a particular arcane > feature in numpy. > > Through these mechanisms, Numpy

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Peter Wang 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 the founder of a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

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 the founder of a company, which is working to > make money from Numpy, the only

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb

[Numpy-discussion] PyArray_FromAny() steals a reference to PyArray_Descr* dtype

Hello all, the docs are unclear as to the reference counting on the inputs to the numpy C function PyArray_FromAny(). multiarraymodule.c in the PyArray_InnerProduct() code seems to imply that a reference to dtype is stolen in the PyArray_FromAny process. Meaning that I don't need/can't have a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:08 PM, T J wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > > >> for the core developers. The right way to produce a >> governance structure is to make concrete proposals and >> show how these proposals are in the interest of the >> *developers* (as well

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > for the core developers. The right way to produce a > governance structure is to make concrete proposals and > show how these proposals are in the interest of the > *developers* (as well as of the users). > > At this point, it seems to me

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac 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 economic >  

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac >> > wrote: >> >> Can you provide an example wh

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac >> wrote: >> >> Can you provide an example where a mo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Perry Greenfield wrote: > On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > [...] > > My 2 cents. > > I think you put too much faith in formal systems. There are plenty of > examples of formal governance that fail miserably. In the end it > depends on the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: [...] My 2 cents. I think you put too much faith in formal systems. There are plenty of examples of formal governance that fail miserably. In the end it depends on the people and their willingness to continue cooperating. Formal governance

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac > wrote: > >> Can you provide an example where a more formal > >> governance structure for NumPy would have meant > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

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 economic interests of the users: users want developers to work more on th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure would >> help resolve disputes. > > > How? I'm not seeing it. > Who would have behaved differently and why? Let's say t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure > would help resolve disputes. > > > How? I'm not seeing it. > Who would have behaved differently and why? > > Alan > > I am

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac 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 >> suggest the NA discussi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure would > help resolve disputes. How? I'm not seeing it. Who would have behaved differently and why? Alan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing li

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, Thanks for these interesting and specific questions. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac  wrote: >>> On 2/14/2012 10:07 PM, Bruce Southey wrote: The one thing that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > I think it is only fair that the group occasionally pings this mailing-list > for important progress reports. No offense intended, but that sounds like an unfunded mandate. More useful would be an offer to liaison between the two. Cheers, Alan _

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/15/2012 1:50 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > I believe that leaving the governance informal and underspecified at > > this stage would be a grave mistake, for everyone concerned. > > To justify that concern, can you point to an > analogous

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac 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 >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/2012 1:50 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > I believe that leaving the governance informal and underspecified at > this stage would be a grave mistake, for everyone concerned. To justify that concern, can you point to an analogous case, where things went awry by not formalizing the governance str

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hello, From: Matthew Brett [matthew.br...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:50 PM To: Discussion of Numerical Python Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/14/

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac 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 code. (In fac

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

OK, the deed has been done :) Ognen On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > It certainly would help people keep the NumPy web-site up to date.   Thanks > Ognen. > > -Travis > > On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Ognen Duzlevski wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Scott Sinc

[Numpy-discussion] David M. Cooke?

Hi, I know this is a bit unusual, but in the last few years I completely lost the track of David M. Cooke. Most of the veterans on this list will remember him as being a great contributor to NumPy during the years 2004 to 2007. He was the creator of numexpr (back in 2006) too. I wonder if so

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Release management (was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1)

On Feb 15, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:32 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > Hi Travis, > > > > It is great that some resource

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

It certainly would help people keep the NumPy web-site up to date. Thanks Ognen. -Travis On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Ognen Duzlevski wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Scott Sinclair > wrote: >> On 8 February 2012 00:03, Travis Oliphant wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:02 AM, P

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Implicit conversion of python datetime to numpy datetime64?

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Mark Wiebe wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > >>> > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] repeat array along new axis without making a copy

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 15:16, Samuel John wrote: > Wow, I wasn't aware of that even if I work with numpy for years now. > NumPy is amazing. It's deliberately unpublicized because you can cause segfaults if you get your math wrong. But once you get your math right and can wrap it up into a utilit

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Release management (was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1)

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Travis Oliphant 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] repeat array along new axis without making a copy

Wow, I wasn't aware of that even if I work with numpy for years now. NumPy is amazing. Samuel ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] repeat array along new axis without making a copy

On Feb 15 06:25 -0600, Warren Weckesser wrote: > Yes, such an array can be created using the as_strided() function from the > module numpy.lib.stride_tricks: Thank you, I will look into that. best, Steve ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussio

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Implicit conversion of python datetime to numpy datetime64?

On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >>> >>> Just a thought I had. Right now, I can pass a list of python ints or fl

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

Hi, 15.02.2012 14:59, Ognen Duzlevski kirjoitti: [clip] > Alright, it will happen sometime today and I will post a message announcing > so. > Ognen Great! Once you have changed the records, we can adjust [1] the numpy.github.com page [1] to deal with the new virtual host name. Thanks, Pauli [1

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote: > On 15 February 2012 15:30, Fernando Perez wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Ognen Duzlevski wrote: It looks like numpy.org already redirects to numpy.scipy.org. So I think redirecting numpy.scipy.org to github should "do

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

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 code. (In fact the other > thread about type-casting suggests that it is extr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.6.1 installation problem

Le 15 février 2012 07:29, Martin Raspaud a écrit : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 14/02/12 16:48, Bruce Southey wrote: > > On 02/14/2012 09:40 AM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > >> Really not an expert here, but it looks like it's trying various > >> compilation options, som

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

On 15 February 2012 15:30, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Ognen Duzlevski wrote: >>> It looks like numpy.org already redirects to numpy.scipy.org. So I >>> think redirecting numpy.scipy.org to github should "do the right >>> thing" >> >> I can do this - can I assume ther

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Ognen Duzlevski wrote: >> It looks like numpy.org already redirects to numpy.scipy.org. So I >> think redirecting numpy.scipy.org to github should "do the right >> thing" > > I can do this - can I assume there is consensus that majority wants this done? +1, and th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote: > On 8 February 2012 00:03, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> >> On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:02 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 06.02.2012 20:41, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: >>> [clip] I've created https://github.com/scipy/scipy.github.com and

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.6.1 installation problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 14/02/12 16:48, Bruce Southey wrote: > On 02/14/2012 09:40 AM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: >> Really not an expert here, but it looks like it's trying various >> compilation options, some work and some don't, and for some reason >> it's really unhappy

Re: [Numpy-discussion] repeat array along new axis without making a copy

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Steve Schmerler wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to repeat an array along a new axis (like broadcast): > >In [8]: a >Out[8]: >array([[0, 1, 2], > [3, 4, 5]]) >In [9]: b=repeat(a[None,...], 3, axis=0) >In [10]: b >Out[10]: >array([[[0,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Release management (was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1)

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:14:11PM -0600, Bruce Southey wrote: > Ralf, > I will miss you as a numpy release manager! > You have not only done an incredible job but also taken the role to a > higher level. > Your attitude and attention to details has been amazing. I definitely +1 that. I think that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] autocorrelation computation performance : use of np.correlate

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Pierre Haessig wrote: > Le 04/02/2012 23:19, Ralf Gommers a écrit : > > scipy.signal is the right place I think. numpy shouldn't grow too many functions like this. > > [going back in time on the autocorrelation topic] > > I see scipy.signal being the good place. Ho

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

On 8 February 2012 00:03, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:02 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> 06.02.2012 20:41, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: >> [clip] >>> I've created https://github.com/scipy/scipy.github.com and gave you >>> permissions on that. So with that for the built html

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Migrating issues to GitHub

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 21:54, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: >> The lack of attachments is the main problem with this transition. It's >> not so seldom that numerical input data or scripts demonstrating an >> issue come useful. This is probably le

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Download page still points to SVN

On 19 January 2012 00:44, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Scott Sinclair > wrote: >> It's rather confusing having two websites. The "official" page at >> http://www.scipy.org/Download points to github. > > The problem is that this page, which looks pretty official to just

Re: [Numpy-discussion] autocorrelation computation performance : use of np.correlate

Le 04/02/2012 23:19, Ralf Gommers a écrit : scipy.signal is the right place I think. numpy shouldn't grow too many functions like this. [going back in time on the autocorrelation topic] I see scipy.signal being the good place. However, I have the (possibly wrong) feeling that Matplotlib is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

Le 15/02/2012 04:07, Bruce Southey a écrit : > 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 code. (In fact the other > thread about type-casting suggests that it is ext

Re: [Numpy-discussion] recarray field access asymmetry

Hi Ben, Thanks for your prompt response. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > >> >> Rather than recarrays, I just use structured arrays like so: >> >> A = np.array([(0, 0), (0, 0), (0, 0), (0, 0)], >>                dtype=[('x', '> >> I can then do: >> >> A['x'][0] >> >> Or >>

[Numpy-discussion] repeat array along new axis without making a copy

Hi I'd like to repeat an array along a new axis (like broadcast): In [8]: a Out[8]: array([[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5]]) In [9]: b=repeat(a[None,...], 3, axis=0) In [10]: b Out[10]: array([[[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5]], [[0, 1, 2], [3

Re: [Numpy-discussion] recarray field access asymmetry

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, David Gowers (kampu) <00a...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This email is about the difference, given a recarray 'arr', >> between >> >> >> A) >> >> arr.foo.x[0] >> >> and B) >> >> arr.foo[0].x >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] recarray field access asymmetry

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, David Gowers (kampu) <00a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > This email is about the difference, given a recarray 'arr', > between > > > A) > > arr.foo.x[0] > > and B) > > arr.foo[0].x > > > > Specifically, form A returns the 0-th x value, whereas form B raises > A