On one of my papers, we put up the code online. Years afterwards, I still get
emails every six months or so because the version of the code which was used
for the paper now returns the wrong result!
The problem is that it was written for the old histogram and, although I have
a new version of the
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> To be clear, I'm not opposed to the change, and it looks like we should go
> forward.
>
> In my mind it's not about developers vs. users as satisfying users is the
> whole point. The purpose of NumPy is not to make its developers happy
To be clear, I'm not opposed to the change, and it looks like we should go
forward.
In my mind it's not about developers vs. users as satisfying users is the whole
point. The purpose of NumPy is not to make its developers happy :-). But,
users also want there to *be* developers on NumPy
2012/5/23 Nathaniel Smith
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
> > Then are you suggesting that we need to back out the changes to the
> casting
> > rules as well, because this will also cause code to stop working. This
> is
> > part of my point. We are not being consi
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Then are you suggesting that we need to back out the changes to the casting
> rules as well, because this will also cause code to stop working. This is
> part of my point. We are not being consistently cautious.
I never understood exac
On 05/23/2012 10:00 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/23/2012 07:29 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>> On May 23, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
>>
>>> 2012/5/23 Nathaniel Smithmailto:n...@pobox.com>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Travis Oliphant
>>> mailto:tra.
On 05/23/2012 07:29 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On May 23, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
>
>> 2012/5/23 Nathaniel Smith mailto:n...@pobox.com>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Travis Oliphant
>> mailto:tra...@continuum.io>> wrote:
>> > I just realized that the pul
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> Then are you suggesting that we need to back out the changes to the casting
> rules as well, because this will also cause code to stop working. This is
> part of my point. We are not being consistently cautious.
The casting change ha
2012/5/23 Travis Oliphant
>
> On May 23, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
>
> 2012/5/23 Nathaniel Smith
>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Travis Oliphant
>> wrote:
>> > I just realized that the pull request doesn't do what I thought it did
>> which
>> > is just add the flag to war
On May 23, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
> 2012/5/23 Nathaniel Smith
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> > I just realized that the pull request doesn't do what I thought it did which
> > is just add the flag to warn users who are writing to an array that is
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Frédéric Bastien wrote:
> +1
>
> Don't forget that many user always update to each version. So they
> will skip many version. This is especially true for people that rely
> on the distribution package that skip many version when they update.
> So this is not just a
+1
Don't forget that many user always update to each version. So they
will skip many version. This is especially true for people that rely
on the distribution package that skip many version when they update.
So this is not just a question of how many version we warn/err, but
also how many times we
2012/5/23 Nathaniel Smith
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
> > I just realized that the pull request doesn't do what I thought it did
> which
> > is just add the flag to warn users who are writing to an array that is a
> > view when it used to be a copy. It's more
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I just realized that the pull request doesn't do what I thought it did which
> is just add the flag to warn users who are writing to an array that is a
> view when it used to be a copy. It's more cautious and also "copies" the
> data fo
I just realized that the pull request doesn't do what I thought it did which is
just add the flag to warn users who are writing to an array that is a view when
it used to be a copy. It's more cautious and also "copies" the data for
1.7.
Is this really a necessary step? I guess it depen
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> I
> have lying around my homedir that it would generally be a free speed
> win
Don't forget the case where the copy semantics may actually provide an
*improvement* in performance by allowing a potentially large array to
get deallocated if
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> I tried checking this before, actually, but can't figure out how to
> build scipy against a copy of numpy that is installed in either a
> virtualenv or just on PYTHONPATH. (Basically, I just don't want to
> install some random development n
This Pull Request looks like a good idea to me as well.
-Travis
On May 16, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Frédéric Bastien wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In fact, I would arg to never change
On May 13, 2012, at 3:11 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> Another approach would be to introduce a method:
>>
>> a.diag(copy=False)
>>
>> and leave a.diagonal() alone. Then, a.diagonal() could be deprecated over
>> 2-3 releases.
>
> This
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Frédéric Bastien wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In fact, I would arg to never change the current behavior, but add the
> > flag for people that want to use it.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > 1) There is probably >10k script
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Frédéric Bastien wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In fact, I would arg to never change the current behavior, but add the
>> > flag for people that w
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>> Just as a sanity check, do the scipy tests run without producing any such
>> messages?
>
> I tried checking this before, actually, but can't figure out how to
> build scipy against
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Frédéric Bastien wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In fact, I would arg to never change the current behavior, but add the
>> > flag for people that w
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Frédéric Bastien wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In fact, I would arg to never change the current behavior, but add the
> > flag for people that want to use it.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > 1) There is probably >10k script
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Frédéric Bastien wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In fact, I would arg to never change the current behavior, but add the
> flag for people that want to use it.
>
> Why?
>
> 1) There is probably >10k script that use it that will need to be
> checked for correctness. There won't be
Hi,
In fact, I would arg to never change the current behavior, but add the
flag for people that want to use it.
Why?
1) There is probably >10k script that use it that will need to be
checked for correctness. There won't be easy to see crash or error
that allow user to see it.
2) This is a globa
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Another approach would be to introduce a method:
>
> a.diag(copy=False)
>
> and leave a.diagonal() alone. Then, a.diagonal() could be deprecated over
> 2-3 releases.
This would be a good idea if we didn't already have both
np.diagonal(a)
+1
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Another approach would be to introduce a method:
>
> a.diag(copy=False)
>
> and leave a.diagonal() alone. Then, a.diagonal() could be deprecated over
> 2-3 releases.
>
> -Travis
>
>
> On May 12, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
On Saturday, May 12, 2012, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Another approach would be to introduce a method:
>
> a.diag(copy=False)
>
> and leave a.diagonal() alone. Then, a.diagonal() could be deprecated over
> 2-3 releases.
>
> -Travis
>
+1
Ben Root
>
___
Another approach would be to introduce a method:
a.diag(copy=False)
and leave a.diagonal() alone. Then, a.diagonal() could be deprecated over 2-3
releases.
-Travis
On May 12, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, M
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM, T J wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 11.05.2012 17:54, Frédéric Bastien kirjoitti:
> >>> > In The
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM, T J wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>>>
>>> 11.05.2012 17:54, Frédéric Bastien kirjoitti:
>>> > In Theano we use a view, but that is not relevant as it is the
>>> > compiler
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>
>> 11.05.2012 17:54, Frédéric Bastien kirjoitti:
>> > In Theano we use a view, but that is not relevant as it is the
>> > compiler that tell what is inplace. So this is invisible to the
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 11.05.2012 17:54, Frédéric Bastien kirjoitti:
> > In Theano we use a view, but that is not relevant as it is the
> > compiler that tell what is inplace. So this is invisible to the user.
> >
> > What about a parameter to diagonal() that def
On May 11, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 11.05.2012 17:54, Frédéric Bastien kirjoitti:
>> In Theano we use a view, but that is not relevant as it is the
>> compiler that tell what is inplace. So this is invisible to the user.
>>
>> What about a parameter to diagonal() that default to
11.05.2012 17:54, Frédéric Bastien kirjoitti:
> In Theano we use a view, but that is not relevant as it is the
> compiler that tell what is inplace. So this is invisible to the user.
>
> What about a parameter to diagonal() that default to return a view not
> writable as you said. The user can the
In Theano we use a view, but that is not relevant as it is the
compiler that tell what is inplace. So this is invisible to the user.
What about a parameter to diagonal() that default to return a view not
writable as you said. The user can then choose what it want and this
don't break the inferface
I've been trying to sort through the changes that landed in master
from the missingdata branch to figure out how to separate out changes
related to NA support from those that aren't, and noticed that one of
them should probably be flagged to the list. Traditionally,
arr.diagonal() and np.diagonal(a
38 matches
Mail list logo
