Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
whoops, fat-fingered this out while in the middle of typing it On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Spitball of a proper solution, though some thought would need to go > into how to get this out of gufuncs. (And absolutely unsuitable for > 1.8!): > > class VectorizedError(obje

Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:37 PM, wrote: > Since numpy and scipy just moved to python 2.6, it's time to advertise > and support > warnings.catch_warnings(). warnings.catch_warnings is a very useful tool and this is all fun to talk about, but realistically we're simply not going to merge any change

Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread Charles R Harris
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On 1 Oct 2013 17:34, "Charles R Harris" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM, wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Charles R Harris > >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On 1 Oct 2013 17:34, "Charles R Harris" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM, wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Charles R Harris >>> > wrote: >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On 1 Oct 2013 17:34, "Charles R Harris" wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM, wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Charles R Harris >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Nathaniel Smit

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Masked arrays: Rationale for "False convention"

2013-10-01 Thread Ondřej Čertík
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Ondřej Čertík > wrote: > >> I see, that makes sense. So to remember this, the rule is: >> >> "Specify elements that you want to get masked using True in 'mask'". > > Yes. This convention dates back at least to th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread Charles R Harris
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM, wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Charles R Harris > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >>> > >>> [switching subject to break out from the gian

Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> >>> [switching subject to break out from the giant 1.8.0rc1 thread] >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, C

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Robert Kern
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:52:06PM +0100, Robert Kern wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > 01.10.2013 16:28, Jack Howarth kirjoitti: > > > [clip] > > > > /sw/bin/python2.7 setup.py buil

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Robert Kern
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > > Hi, > > 01.10.2013 16:28, Jack Howarth kirjoitti: > [clip] > > /sw/bin/python2.7 setup.py build > > > > which fails at... > > > > /sw/bin/gfortran -Wall -L/sw/lib build/temp.macosx-10.6-x86_64-2.7/numpy/linalg/lapack_litemodule.o build/temp

Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> [switching subject to break out from the giant 1.8.0rc1 thread] >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread Charles R Harris
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > [switching subject to break out from the giant 1.8.0rc1 thread] > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [pydata] Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> I bet the difference is: >> >> In master, nansum ultimately calls arr.sum(...), which will be >> intercepted by Series.sum. >> >> In 1.8.x, nansum ultimately calls np.add.r

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [pydata] Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Charles R Harris
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > I bet the difference is: > > In master, nansum ultimately calls arr.sum(...), which will be > intercepted by Series.sum. > > In 1.8.x, nansum ultimately calls np.add.reduce(...), which can't be > intercepted and will return the wrong thing.

[Numpy-discussion] nanargmax failure case (was: Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1)

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
[switching subject to break out from the giant 1.8.0rc1 thread] On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Nathaniel

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [pydata] Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
I bet the difference is: In master, nansum ultimately calls arr.sum(...), which will be intercepted by Series.sum. In 1.8.x, nansum ultimately calls np.add.reduce(...), which can't be intercepted and will return the wrong thing. AFAICT the np.add.reduce(a, ...) call could just be replaced with a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Charles R Harris
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Christoph Gohlke > >> wrote: > >> > 2) Bottleneck 0.7.0 > >> > > >> > > http

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [pydata] Re: [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jeff wrote: > Just built from numpy master looks ok > > In [7]: pd.__version__ > Out[7]: '0.12.0' > > In [8]: np.__version__ > Out[8]: '1.9.0.dev-74abfa2' > > In [9]: s = pandas.Series([1.0, np.nan]) > > In [10]: np.nansum(s) > Out[10]: 1.0 > > In [11]: type(np.nans

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Christoph Gohlke >> wrote: >> > 2) Bottleneck 0.7.0 >> > >> > https://github.com/kwgoodman/bottleneck/issues/71#issuecomment-25331701 >> >> I c

[Numpy-discussion] review/approval request

2013-10-01 Thread Graeme B. Bell
most negative value of intp as an error > marker in both cases and raise a warning. It is a change in behavior, but I > think one that needs to be made. > > Chuck > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Charles R Harris
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Christoph Gohlke > wrote: > > 2) Bottleneck 0.7.0 > > > > https://github.com/kwgoodman/bottleneck/issues/71#issuecomment-25331701 > > I can't tell if these are real bugs in numpy, or tests checking that >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Christoph Gohlke wrote: > 2) Bottleneck 0.7.0 > > https://github.com/kwgoodman/bottleneck/issues/71#issuecomment-25331701 I can't tell if these are real bugs in numpy, or tests checking that bottleneck is bug-for-bug compatible with old numpy and we just fixed so

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: >>> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Christoph Gohlke >> >> > wrote: >>> >> > NumPy 1.8.0rc1 looks good. All tests pass on Windows and >>> >> most >>> >> 3rd party >>> >> > packages test OK no

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Sebastian Berg
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 12:00 +0200, Jens Jørgen Mortensen wrote: > Den 30-09-2013 17:17, Charles R Harris skrev: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > NumPy 1.8.0rc1 is up now on sourceforge .The binary builds are > > included except for Python 3.3 on windows, which will arrive later. > > Many thanks to Ralf

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Masked arrays: Rationale for "False convention"

2013-10-01 Thread Robert Kern
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > I see, that makes sense. So to remember this, the rule is: > > "Specify elements that you want to get masked using True in 'mask'". Yes. This convention dates back at least to the original MA package in Numeric; I don't know if Paul Dubois s

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jens Jørgen Mortensen wrote: > I seems that solve() doesn't like arrays like zeros((3, 0)). I get this > with 1.8.0rc1 on Ubuntu 13.04 and Python 2.7.4: Yep, looks like a simple bug in the new gufunc stuff, thanks for catching it. Filed here: https://github.com/n

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Daπid
Disregard that, I had not cleaned the previous installation properly. Sorry for the noise. On 1 October 2013 12:11, Daπid wrote: > > On 30 September 2013 17:17, Charles R Harris wrote: > >> NumPy 1.8.0rc1 is up now on >> sourceforge

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Daπid
On 30 September 2013 17:17, Charles R Harris wrote: > NumPy 1.8.0rc1 is up now on > sourceforge.The > binary builds are included except for Python 3.3 on windows, which > will arrive later. Many thanks to Ralf for the binaries, and to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.8.0rc1

2013-10-01 Thread Jens Jørgen Mortensen
Den 30-09-2013 17:17, Charles R Harris skrev: Hi All, NumPy 1.8.0rc1 is up now on sourceforge .The binary builds are included except for Python 3.3 on windows, which will arrive later. Many thanks to Ralf for the binaries, and to t

[Numpy-discussion] Issue with np.median and array subclasses in 1.8.0rc (worked with 1.7.0)

2013-10-01 Thread Thomas Robitaille
Hi, The behavior for ``np.median`` and array sub-classes has changed in 1.8.0rc, which breaks unit-handling code (such as the ``quantities`` package, or ``astropy.units``): https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/3846 This previously worked from Numpy 1.5 (at least) to Numpy 1.7. Is there a new (a