-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
15.08.2013 19:52, Charles R Harris kirjoitti:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Blake Griffith
blake.a.griff...@gmail.com
wrote: I would like to have the ufunc overrides in 1.8 if it is
possible.
[clip]
What is the status of that? I've been
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
15.08.2013 19:52, Charles R Harris kirjoitti:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Blake Griffith
blake.a.griff...@gmail.com
wrote: I would like to have the ufunc overrides in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
17.08.2013 21:20, Charles R Harris kirjoitti:
[clip]
Experimental would be OK if it would help you with Scipy 0.13.0.
But if it does go in and is used in 0.13, won't that effectively
lock it in until the next scipy/numpy release? That seems a bit
Hi All,
I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints,
thoughts?
Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints, thoughts?
Thanks, Chuck. Are there any specific PRs up for review that should
be incorporated into 1.8?
Stéfan
I don't see any that *have* to go in, but there are a few that could be
included. The most significant is probably the inplace fancy indexing if it
is ready. The nanmean etc. functions are not committed yet, but I think
they are ready. If the Polynomial import fixes show up, they can go in.
There
I would like to have the ufunc overrides in 1.8 if it is possible.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't see any that *have* to go in, but there are a few that could be
included. The most significant is probably the inplace fancy indexing
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Blake Griffith blake.a.griff...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would like to have the ufunc overrides in 1.8 if it is possible.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any that *have* to go in, but there are a
I think it is nearly complete. Although there are some recent changes that
need review.
I still need to go back and make changes to the original NEP noting the
differences in final implementation.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi All,
I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints,
thoughts?
First thought: thanks a lot for doing this.
Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints,
thoughts?
First thought: thanks a lot for
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I'm thinking of making the
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the discussion on timezones in
datetime64, but I have the impression that those who do think it needs
an urgent decision and some action for the short term. Is that right,
datetimers?
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Chris B - are you the point man on this one? What do you think?
Only the point man in the sense that I'm poking at people to try to
get what I want ;-)
But see my other note.
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the discussion on timezones in
datetime64, but I have the impression that those who do
18 matches
Mail list logo
