Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Sorry for my confusion, but I noticed (as a result of the discussion >> here [1]) that np.rint and the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for my confusion, but I noticed (as a result of the discussion > here [1]) that np.rint and the fallback C function [2] seem to round > to even. But - my impression was that C rint, by default, rounds

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

Hi Chuck, Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Matthew Brett

[Numpy-discussion] Moving NumPy's PRNG Forward

tl;dr: I think that our stream-compatibility policy is holding us back, and I think we can come up with a way forward with a new policy that will allow us to innovate without seriously compromising our reliability. To recap, our current policy for numpy.random is that we guarantee that the stream

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

Hi, On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi Chuck, >> >> Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Chuck, > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

I am confused . Shouldn't rint round to nearest integer. http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/rint Regards Mads On Jan 19, 2018 15:50, "Matthew Brett" wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi Chuck, >> >> Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Mads Ipsen wrote: > > I am confused . Shouldn't rint round to nearest integer. http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/rint It does. Matthew was asking specifically about its behavior when it is rounding numbers ending in .5, not the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving NumPy's PRNG Forward

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Robert Kern wrote: > tl;dr: I think that our stream-compatibility policy is holding us back, > and I think we can come up with a way forward with a new policy that will > allow us to innovate without seriously compromising our reliability.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving NumPy's PRNG Forward

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:57 AM Robert Kern wrote: > As an alternative, we may also want to leave `np.random.RandomState` > entirely fixed in place as deprecated legacy code that is never updated. > This would allow current unit tests that depend on the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving NumPy's PRNG Forward

> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 23:55:57 +0900 > From: Robert Kern > > tl;dr: I think that our stream-compatibility policy is holding us back, and > I think we can come up with a way forward with a new policy that will allow > us to innovate without seriously compromising our

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving NumPy's PRNG Forward

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Robert Kern wrote: [...] > There seems to be a lot of pent-up motivation to improve on the random > number generation, in particular the distributions, that has been blocked by > our policy. I think we've lost a few potential first-time

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving NumPy's PRNG Forward

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:57 AM Robert Kern wrote: >> >> As an alternative, we may also want to leave `np.random.RandomState` entirely fixed in place as deprecated legacy code that is never

[Numpy-discussion] Behavior of rint?

Hi, Sorry for my confusion, but I noticed (as a result of the discussion here [1]) that np.rint and the fallback C function [2] seem to round to even. But - my impression was that C rint, by default, rounds down [3]. Is numpy rint not behaving the same way as the GNU C library rint? In [4]: