Concerning numpy-MKL licence I refer to this question on the Intel Forum:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/328344 Question on
Redistribution related to numpy/scipy
In the case of numpy-MKL the MKL binaries are statically linked to the
pyd-files. Given the usefulness, performance and
Carl Kleffner cmkleff...@gmail.com wrote:
In the case of numpy-MKL the MKL binaries are statically linked to the
pyd-files. Given the usefulness, performance and robustness of the
MKL-based binaries a definite answer to this question would be desirable.
Say: Can I use and re-redistribute a
Sebastian has done a lot of work to refactor/rationalize numpy indexing.
The changes are extensive enough that it would be good to have more public
review, so here is the release note.
The NumPy indexing has seen a complete rewrite in this version. This makes
most advanced integer indexing
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sebastian has done a lot of work to refactor/rationalize numpy indexing.
The changes are extensive enough that it would be good to have more public
review, so here is the release note.
The NumPy indexing has
If you work in an academia world it can be relevant once third parties are
involved in a bigger project. A situation may be reached, where you just
have to prove the license situation of all of your software components.
Numpy and scipy is 'selled' as BSD or MIT based foundation for scientific
This sounds like a great and welcome work and improvements.
Does it make sense to also do something about the behavior of advanced
indexing when slices are interleaved between lists and integers.
I know that jay borque has some preliminary work to fix this. There are a
some straightforward
Hi,
I have run into a potential 'for loop' bottleneck. Let me outline:
The following array describes bonds (connections) in a benzene molecule
b = [[0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11],
[5, 6, 1, 0, 2, 7, 3, 8, 1, 4, 9, 2, 10, 5, 3, 4, 11, 0,
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Mads Ipsen mads.ip...@gmail.com wrote:
Since atoms [1,2,3,7,8] have been
deleted, the remaining atoms with indices larger than the deleted atoms
must be decremented.
Let
x
array([[ 0, 1, 2, 3],
[ 4, 5, 6, 7],
[ 8, 9, 10, 11]])
and
i =
Cannot test right now, but np.unique(b, return_inverse=True)[1].reshape(2,
-1) should do what you are after, I think.
On Feb 2, 2014 11:58 AM, Mads Ipsen mads.ip...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have run into a potential 'for loop' bottleneck. Let me outline:
The following array describes bonds
Carl Kleffner cmkleff...@gmail.com wrote:
If you work in an academia world it can be relevant once third parties
are involved in a bigger project. A situation may be reached, where you
just have to prove the license situation of all of your software components.
If you involve third parties
Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it seems to be a GNU problem:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/story/howto/openmp/#OpenmpAndFork
This Howto also claims Intel compilers is not affected.
It seems another patch has been proposed to the libgomp team today:
11 matches
Mail list logo
