Matt Knox wrote:
>>Moving the implementation to the C-level also has its downside. To
>>me, at least, Python code is much more readable and hence easier to
>>maintain.
>>
>>Is there a way that we can implement only the speed-critical methods
>>in C?
>>
>>Cheers
>>Stéfan
>>
>>
>>
>
>Implementi
Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> A "nice C level api" sounds like the definition of oxymoron :) Why
> would we argue for more C than absolutely necessary in a Python-based
> library?
Well, it's more often absolutely necessary than you might think. Any common
operation on the array should be written i
El dv 19 de 01 del 2007 a les 18:08 +0200, en/na Stefan van der Walt va
escriure:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 02:13:52PM +, Matt Knox wrote:
> > > Moving the implementation to the C-level also has its downside. To
> > > me, at least, Python code is much more readable and hence easier to
> > > ma
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 02:13:52PM +, Matt Knox wrote:
> > Moving the implementation to the C-level also has its downside. To
> > me, at least, Python code is much more readable and hence easier to
> > maintain.
> >
> > Is there a way that we can implement only the speed-critical methods
> >
> Moving the implementation to the C-level also has its downside. To
> me, at least, Python code is much more readable and hence easier to
> maintain.
>
> Is there a way that we can implement only the speed-critical methods
> in C?
>
> Cheers
> Stéfan
>
Implementing the whole thing in C also h
> That time series module sounds very interesting! Is it available
> somewhere, or some documentation?
>
> Thank you,
> Sven
>
Not really any documentation yet, and the code is still in a state of flux, so
expect frequent changes/additions at this point still. No concern is being
given to "bac
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:56:16AM +0100, Sven Schreiber wrote:
> Matt Knox schrieb:
>
> >
> > I am definitely in favor of the new maskedarray implementation. I've been
> > working with Pierre on a time series module which is a subclass of the new
> > masked array implementation, and having it as
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:18:22PM +, Matt Knox wrote:
> > For 1.1 I would really like to move most of the often-used sub-classes
> > of the ndarray to the C-level and merge in functionality from CVXOPT.
>
> Moving the implementation to the C-level would be awesome. In particular,
> __getitem
Matt Knox schrieb:
>
> I am definitely in favor of the new maskedarray implementation. I've been
> working with Pierre on a time series module which is a subclass of the new
> masked array implementation, and having it as a subclass of ndarray definitely
> has advantages (and no real disadvantage
> This makes sense to me. I'm generally favorable to the new maskedarray
> (I actually like the idea of it being a sub-class). I'm just waiting
> for people that actually use the MaskedArray to comment.
>
> For 1.1 I would really like to move most of the often-used sub-classes
> of the ndarr
Eric Firing wrote:
>Pierre GM wrote:
>
>
>>All,
>>I've updated this famous reimplementation of maskedarray I keep ranting about.
>>
>>
>[...]
>
>
>>I also put the file `timer_comparison.py`, that runs some unittests with each
>>implementation
>>(numpy.core.ma and maskedarray), and outputs
Pierre GM wrote:
> All,
> I've updated this famous reimplementation of maskedarray I keep ranting about.
[...]
> I also put the file `timer_comparison.py`, that runs some unittests with each
> implementation
> (numpy.core.ma and maskedarray), and outputs the minimum times.
> On my machine, there d
All,
I've updated this famous reimplementation of maskedarray I keep ranting about.
A new feature has been introduced : hard_mask.
When a masked array is created with the flag hard_mask=True, the mask can only
grow, not shrink. In other terms, masked values cannot be unmasked.
The flag hard_mask is
13 matches
Mail list logo
