Re: [Numpy-discussion] ndarray.T2 for 2D transpose

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:52 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ndarray.T2 for 2D transpose

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Apropos column/row vectors, I've toyed a bit with the idea of adding a >> flag to numpy array

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ndarray.T2 for 2D transpose

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote: > On 7 April 2016 at 11:17, Chris Barker wrote: > > np.col_vector(arr) > > > > which would be a synonym for np.reshape(arr, (-1,1)) > > > > would that make anyone happy? > > I'm curious to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] rational custom dtype example

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Steve Mitchell wrote: > I have noticed a few issues with the “rational” custom C dtype example. > > > > 1.It doesn’t build on Windows. I managed to tweak it to build. > Mainly, the MSVC9 compiler is C89. > > 2. A few tests

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0 released

Hi All, I'm pleased to announce the release of Numpy 1.11.0. This release is the result of six months of work comprising 371 merged pull requests submitted by 112 authors containing many bug fixes and improvements. Highlights are: - The datetime64 type is now timezone naive. - A dtype

[Numpy-discussion] Replacing paver with invoke

HI All, I've been looking around for something easier to use than paver for running shell commands. Fabric looked like a possibility, but it doesn't support Python 3 and in currently in the midst of a rewrite, not least because it has become burdened with technical dept. Invoke

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc2 released.

Hi All, Numpy 1.11.0rc2 has been released. There have been a few reversions and fixes since 1.11.0rc1, but by and large things have been pretty stable and unless something terrible happens, I will make the final next weekend. Source files and documentation can be found on Sourceforge

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Hi Travis, >> >> On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote: >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > Can you help

Re: [Numpy-discussion] linux wheels coming soon

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 2016 5:54 PM, "Charles R Harris" <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] linux wheels coming soon

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a heads-up that we're planning to upload Linux wheels for numpy > to PyPI soon. Unless there's some objection, these will be using > ATLAS, just like the current Windows wheels, for the same reasons -- >

[Numpy-discussion] Ufunc identity for bitwise reduction of object arrays.

Hi All, There is currently some discussion on whether or not object arrays should have an identity for bitwise reductions. Currently, they do not use the identity for non-empty arrays, so this would only affect reductions on empty arrays. Currently

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

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: > 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

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] 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.

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)

[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] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > 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 off

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc1 released.

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 files and documentation can be found on Sourceforge

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.11.0b3 released.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Andreas Mueller wrote: > > > On 02/12/2016 04:19 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > >> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/doc/release/1.11.0-notes.rst >> >> Thanks. > That doesn't cover the backward incompatible change to assert_almost_equal >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.11.0b3 released.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 9:15 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:50 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >&g

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Subclassing ma.masked_array, code broken after version 1.9

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Gutenkunst, Ryan N - (rgutenk) < rgut...@email.arizona.edu> wrote: > Thank Jonathan, > > Good to confirm this isn't something inappropriate I'm doing. I give up > transparency here in my application, so I'll just work around it. I leave > it up to wiser numpy

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.11.0b3 released.

t; It would be good for us to know which changes are done one purpos >>>> without hunting through the issue tracker. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> >>>> On 02/09/2016 09:09 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Modulus (remainder) function corner cases

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Nils Becker <nilsc.bec...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 2016-02-13 17:42 GMT+01:00 Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com>: &g

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Modulus (remainder) function corner cases

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Nils Becker <nilsc.bec

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Suggestion: special-case np.array(range(...)) to be faster

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Antony Lee > wrote: > >> re: no reason why... >> This has nothing to do with Python2/Python3 (I personally stopped using >> Python2 at least 3 years ago.)

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Modulus (remainder) function corner cases

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Nils Becker <nilsc.bec...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-02-13 17:42 GMT+01:00 Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com>: > >> The Fortran modulo function, which is the same basic function as in my >>> branch, does not specify any

[Numpy-discussion] Modulus (remainder) function corner cases

Hi All, I'm curious as to what folks think about some choices in the compution of the remainder function. As an example where different choices can be made In [2]: -1e-64 % 1. Out[2]: 1.0 In [3]: float64(-1e-64) % 1. Out[3]: 0.99989 The first is Python, the second is in my branch.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Modulus (remainder) function corner cases

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm curious as to what folks think about some choices in the compution of > the remainder function. As an example where different choices can be made > > In [2]: -1e-64 % 1.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.11.0b3 released.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: > 10.02.2016, 04:09, Charles R Harris kirjoitti: > > I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.11.0b3. This beta contains > [clip] > > Please test, hopefully this will be that last beta needed.

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.11.0b3 released.

Hi All, I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.11.0b3. This beta contains additional bug fixes as well as limiting the number of FutureWarnings raised by assignment to masked array slices. One issue that remains to be decided is whether or not to postpone raising an error for floats used

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [OT] Interpolation of an unevently sampled bandwidth limited signal

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Nadav Horesh wrote: > Thank you, I'll try this. > Interpolation by the sinc function is equivalent to what yiu get if you'll > synthesize a smooth function by summing its Fourier component obtained via > FFT of the data. > You might be

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > > 01.02.2016, 23:25, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti: > > [clip] > >> So: it would really help if someone could pick up the automation part of > >> this and

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy pull requests getting out of hand.

Hi All, There are now 130 open numpy pull requests and it seems almost impossible to keep that number down. My personal decision is that I am going to ignore any new enhancements for the next couple of months and only merge bug fixes, tests, house keeping (style, docs, deprecations), and old PRs.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

arts getting tested automatically.) > On Jan 28, 2016 12:51 PM, "Charles R Harris" <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I hope I am pleased to announce the Numpy 1.11.0b2 release. The first >> beta was a damp squib due to missing files i

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b2 released

Hi All, I hope I am pleased to announce the Numpy 1.11.0b2 release. The first beta was a damp squib due to missing files in the released source files, this release fixes that. The new source filese may be downloaded from sourceforge, no binaries will be released until the mingw tool chain

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Charles R

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Solbrig,Jeremy < jeremy.solb...@colostate.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > Much of what is below was copied from this stack overflow question. > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Solbrig,Jeremy < > jeremy.solb...@colostate.edu> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Much of what is below was copied f

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

o dig into the source again, but focusing on the > _MaskedBinaryOperation class to try to understand what is going on there. > > Jeremy > > From: NumPy-Discussion <numpy-discussion-boun...@scipy.org> on behalf of > Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> > Repl

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent behavior for ufuncs in numpy v1.10.X

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Di, 2016-01-26 at 17:27 +, Solbrig,Jeremy wrote: > > Hello Chuck, > > > > I receive the same result with 1.10.4. I agree that it looks like > > __array_prepare__, __array_finalize__, and __array_wrap__

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

Hi All, I'm pleased to announce that Numpy 1.11.0b1 is now available on sourceforge. This is a source release as the mingw32 toolchain is broken. Please test it out and report any errors that you discover. Hopefully we can do better

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Derek Homeier < de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > > I'm pleased to announce that Numpy 1.11.0b1 is now available on > sourceforge. This is a source release as the mingw32 toolchain is broken. > Please test it out and report any errors

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Derek Homeier < > de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote: > >> Hi Chuck, >> >> > I'm pleased to announce that N

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] Numpy 1.11.0b1 is out

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Derek Homeier < >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PR #7090: ENH: Added 'doane' and 'sqrt' estimators to np.histogram

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz < jfoxrabinov...@gmail.com> wrote: > As someone very new to relatively large projects such as numpy, I was > wondering how the process works. I have announced my PR with some > small enhancements to the histogram function and fixed up all of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ANN: scipy 0.17.0 release

Congratulations. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] 1.11.0 release notes.

Hi All, I've put up a PR with revised 1.11.0 release notes at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/7073. I would appreciate it if anyone involved in the 1.11 release would take a look and note anything missing that they think should be included or things that are misrepresented. Chuck

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of np.random.uniform

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Peter Creasey < p.e.creasey...@googlemail.com> wrote: > +1 for the deprecation warning for low>high, I think the cases where > that is called are more likely to be unintentional rather than someone > trying to use uniform(closed_end, open_end) and you might help

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of np.random.uniform

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> > wrote: &g

[Numpy-discussion] maintenance/1.11.x branched

Hi All, I've branched 1.11.x. There is still work to be done, but the branch draws the line for PRs to be included in 1.11. Experience teaches that fixups will needed, but new work/enhancements will be in 1.12.0-dev0. Please run tests on this branch if you have the time. Travis CI has begun

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of np.random.uniform

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > What does the standard lib do for rand range? I see that randint Is closed > on both ends, so order doesn't matter, though if it raises for b that's a precedent we could follow. > randint is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of np.random.uniform

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < > chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > >> What does the standard lib do for rand range? I see that randint Is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of np.random.uniform

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < > chris.bar.

[Numpy-discussion] Get rid of special scalar arithmetic

Hi All, I've opened issue #7002 , reproduced below, for discussion. > Numpy umath has a file scalarmath.c.src that implements scalar arithmetic > using special functions that are about 10x faster than the equivalent > ufuncs. > > In [1]: a =

[Numpy-discussion] 1.11 branch this weekend

Hi All, Just a heads up. Note that we are trying to move to a faster release cycle and that changes the flavor of the releases. Instead of a list of goals to meet before each release, releases will more resemble snapshots of master at branch time. The main thing is that they be regression and bug

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.4 release.

Hi All, I'm pleased the release of the Numpy 1.10.4 (bugs stomped) release. This release was motivated by a reported segfault, but a few additional fixes were made: * gh-6922 BUG: numpy.recarray.sort segfaults on Windows, * gh-6937 BUG: busday_offset does the wrong thing with modifiedpreceding

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.4 release.

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Erik Bray <erik.m.bray+nu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Where is numpy 1.10.3?", you may ask. There were glitches with the &

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.3 release tomorrow, 1.11.x branch this month.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, CJ Carey wrote: > I'll echo Marten's sentiments. I've found __numpy_ufunc__ as it exists in > the master branch to be quite useful in my experiments with sparse arrays ( > https://github.com/perimosocordiae/sparray), and I think it'll be

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.3 release.

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 10:05 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > A significant segfault problem has been reported against Numpy 1.10.2 > and I > &g

[Numpy-discussion] 1.10.3 release tomorrow, 1.11.x branch this month.

Hi All, I'm going to attempt a 1.10.3 release tomorrow to address the segfault reported in #6922 . I'd also like to branch 1.11.x sometime this month, hopefully around Jan 18 (two weeks from now). There are some unresolved issues, in particular

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.3 release.

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > A significant segfault problem has been reported against Num

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.3 release.

Hi All, A significant segfault problem has been reported against Numpy 1.10.2 and I want to make a quick 1.10.3 release to get it fixed. Two questions - What exactly is the release process that has been decided on? AFAIK, I should just do a source release on Sourceforge, ping Matthew to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Unable to install a copy of Numpy, retrieved from the Git Repository.

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Colin W. wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Advice sought Numpy Install > Failure Using Numpy from Git with setup.py install __init__ 156 if > __NUMPY_SETUP__: import sys as _sys

[Numpy-discussion] random integers

Hi All, I've implemented several new random integer functions in #6910 , to wit - np.random.random_int32 - np.random.random_int64 - np.random.random_intp These are the minimum functions that I think we need for the numpy 1.11.0 release, most

[Numpy-discussion] Why is masked string array fill value 'N/A'

Why, why, why is it not the empty string. you can't actually fill an `S2` type with such a string, hence one must convert masked string arrays to a list of strings to use it. That is pathetic. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > The work is in convincing the one person (that I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> w

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

> The work is in convincing the one person (that I know about) who has access to the appropriate permissions to pay attention to my email... I've made several attempts at getting this set up with no effect so far :-/ But yeah, it does need to be done in any case so I'll try again. I tried

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> w

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Just checking if someone has already registered numpy

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@g

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > The work is in convincing the one person (that I know about) who has > access to the appropriate permissions to pay attention to my email... I've > made several attempt

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Just checking if someone has already registered numpy

[Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

Hi All, Just checking if someone has already registered numpy on appveyor. If not, I intend to rename my personal account. Note that as AFAICT, someone has to be the admin for appveyor, and that someone, like everyone else, can only have one account on appveyor. Other folks with accounts can be

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Charles R Harris < >> c

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Charles R Harris < &g

Re: [Numpy-discussion] AppVeyor

gt; > >> > >> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Charles R Harris < >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop providing official win32 downloads (for now)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm wondering what people think of the idea of us (= numpy) stopping > providing our "official" win32 builds (the "superpack installers" > distributed on sourceforge) starting with the next release. > > These

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Build broken

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Daπid wrote: > > On 15 December 2015 at 07:25, Jaime Fernández del Río < > jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Can anyone who actually knows what Travis is doing take a look at the log: >> >> https://travis-ci.org/numpy/numpy/builds/96836128

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Build broken

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Jaime Fernández del Río < jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Travis is repeatedly being unable to complete one of our test builds. It > all started after I merged a very simple PR that changed a single word in a > docstring, so I have a hard time believing

[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.10.2 release

Hi All, I'm pleased to announce the release of Numpy 1.10.2. This release should take care of the bugs discovered in the 1.10.1 release, some of them severe. Upgrading is strongly advised if you are currently using 1.10.1. Windows binaries and source releases can be found at the usual place on

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Fast vectorized arithmetic with ~32 significant digits under Numpy

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Thomas Baruchel wrote: > From time to time it is asked on forums how to extend precision of > computation on Numpy array. The most common answer > given to this question is: use the dtype=object with some arbitrary > precision module like mpmath

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Fast vectorized arithmetic with ~32 significant digits under Numpy

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 2015 7:46 AM, "Charles R Harris" <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Thomas Baruchel <baruc...@gm

[Numpy-discussion] volunteers for 1.11.0 release manager?

Hi All, Thought I'd bring this up. I think the 1.11.0 release should be fairly easy as releases go, so if someone wants to get some practice with making releases this is probably a good one to start with. We should branch 1.11.x sometime before the end of January. It is almost in branchable

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Q: Use of scipy.signal.bilinear

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:30 AM, R Schumacher wrote: > We have a function which describes a frequency response correction to > piezo devices we use. To flatten the FFT, it is similar to: > Cdis_t = .5 > N = 8192 > for n in range(8192): > B3 = n * 2560 / N > Fc(n) = 1 /

Re: [Numpy-discussion] When to stop supporting Python 2.6?

(very)) >> old python on an old OS, but need the latest and greatest numpy. >> >> Chuck's list was pretty long and compelling. >> >> -CHB >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Sturla Molden <sturla.mol...@gmail.com> >> wrote:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Where is Jaime?

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Sturla Molden <sturla.mol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The cash economy is nothing to sniff at ;) It is big in NYC and other > > places with high taxes and bureaucratic meddlin

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.2rc2 released

Hi All, I'm pleased to announce the release of Numpy 1.10.2rc2. After two months of stomping bugs I think the house is clean and we are almost ready to put it up for sale. However, bugs are persistent and may show up at anytime, so please inspect and test thoroughly. Windows binaries and source

Re: [Numpy-discussion] When to stop supporting Python 2.6?

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Bryan Van de Ven <bry...@continuum.io> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 4, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Julian Taylor < >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Where is Jaime?

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río < jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Jaime Fernández del Río < >&g

[Numpy-discussion] Where is Jaime?

Anyone hear from Jaime lately? He seems to have gone missing. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] Travis is busted.

Just to note that travis is broken at the moment, it can't find the whitelisted gfortran package. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Where is Jaime?

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Jaime Fernández del Río < jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm alive and well: trying to stay afloat on a sea of messaging protocols, > Java and Swiss bureaucracy, but doing great aside from that. > > Jaime > > Glad to hear it. I was beginning to worry... Java? Poor

Re: [Numpy-discussion] When to stop supporting Python 2.6?

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Julian Taylor wrote: > dropping 3.2: +-0 as it would remove some extra code in our broken py3 > string handling but not much > dropping 3.3: -1 doesn't gain us anything so far I know > dropping 2.6: -1, I don't see not enough

[Numpy-discussion] When to stop supporting Python 2.6?

Hi All, Thought I would raise the topic apropos this post . There is not a great advantage to dropping 2.6, OTOH, 2.7 has more features (memoryview) and we could clean up the code a bit. Along the same lines, dropping

[Numpy-discussion] Python development on fedora 23.

Hi Fedora users, Python distutils on fedora 23 is configured for hardening, hence `redhat-rpm-config` is a dependency if you want to build numpy, scipy, etc. The symptom is a "broken toolchain" error. A bug is open for this and it might get fixed on the Python end, but I don't expect anything

Re: [Numpy-discussion] record array performance issue / bug

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 8:54 PM, G Jones wrote: > Hi, > Using the latest numpy from anaconda (1.10.1) on Python 2.7, I found that > the following code works OK if npackets = 2, but acts bizarrely if npackets > is large (2**12): > > --- > > npackets = 2**12 >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.2rc1

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Orion Poplawski <or...@cora.nwra.com> wrote: > On 11/12/2015 02:11 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I am pleased to announce the release of Numpy 1.10.2rc1. This release > should > > fix the problems ex

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.2rc1

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Orion Poplawski <or...@cora.nwra.com> > wrote: > >> On 11/12/2015 02:11 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: >> > Hi All, >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removiing 1.10.0 and 1.10.1 from sourceforge and pypi

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Manolo Martínez <man...@austrohungaro.com> wrote: > On 11/13/15 at 11:06am, Charles R Harris wrote: > > The inner product bug > > for non contiguous arrays is particularly egregious. > > Could you please post a link to the related issue

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >