Pierre GM pgmdevlist at gmail.com writes:
Hello,
The idea behin having a lib.recfunctions and not a rec.recfunctions or
whatever was to illustrate that the
functions of this package are more generic than they appear. They work with
regular structured ndarrays
and don't need recarrays.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Sturla Molden stu...@molden.no wrote:
Den 01.07.2011 19:22, skrev Charles R Harris:
Just curious as to what folks know about the current status of the
free windows 64 bit compilers. I know things were dicey with gcc and
gfortran some two years ago, but... well,
Hi,
Just for reference, I am using this as the latest version of the NEP -
I hope it's current:
https://github.com/m-paradox/numpy/blob/7b10c9ab1616b9100e98dd2ab80cef639d5b5735/doc/neps/missing-data.rst
I'm mostly relaying stuff I said, although generally (please do
correct me if I am wrong) I
On 07/06/2011 02:05 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Just for reference, I am using this as the latest version of the NEP -
I hope it's current:
https://github.com/m-paradox/numpy/blob/7b10c9ab1616b9100e98dd2ab80cef639d5b5735/doc/neps/missing-data.rst
I'm mostly relaying stuff I said, although
On 07/06/2011 02:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 07/06/2011 02:05 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Just for reference, I am using this as the latest version of the NEP -
I hope it's current:
Hi,
Sorry, I hope you don't mind, I moved this to it's own thread, trying
to separate comments on the NA debate from the discussion yesterday.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 07/06/2011 02:05 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Just for
On 07/06/2011 02:46 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, I hope you don't mind, I moved this to it's own thread, trying
to separate comments on the NA debate from the discussion yesterday.
I'm sorry.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 07/06/2011 02:46 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, I hope you don't mind, I moved this to it's own thread, trying
to separate comments on the NA debate from the discussion yesterday.
I'm sorry.
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people have different
definitions for the terms being used. Until this is thoroughly cleared up, I
feel the design process is tilting at windmills.
In the interests of
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people have different
definitions for the terms being used. Until this is thoroughly cleared up,
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people have different
definitions for the terms being used. Until this is thoroughly cleared
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people have
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark
Ah, semantics...
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
NA (Not Available)
A placeholder for a value which is unknown to computations. That
value may be temporarily hidden with a mask, may have been lost
due to hard drive corruption, or gone for any number of reasons.
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Just for reference, I am using this as the latest version of the NEP -
I hope it's current:
https://github.com/m-paradox/numpy/blob/7b10c9ab1616b9100e98dd2ab80cef639d5b5735/doc/neps/missing-data.rst
I'm
In article
cabl7cqhnnjkzk9xnrlvdarsdknwrm4ev0mxdurjsaxq73eb...@mail.gmail.com,
Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Russell E. Owen ro...@uw.edu wrote:
In article BANLkTi=LXiTcrv1LgMtP=p9nF8eMr8=+h...@mail.gmail.com,
Ralf Gommers
Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
Here's a short-ish summary of the topics discussed in the conference
call this afternoon.
Thanks, this is great! And thanks to all who participated in the call.
3. Using IGNORE to signal a jagged array. e.g., [ [1, 2, IGNORE],
[IGNORE, 3, 4] ] should behave
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
Just for reference, I am using this as the latest version of the NEP -
I hope it's current:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
What I'm saying is that Mark's proposal is more flexible. Say for the
sake of the argument that I have two codes I need to interface with:
- Library A is written in Fortran and uses a seperate (explicit)
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Here's an HPC perspective...:
At least I feel that the transparency of NumPy is a huge part of its
current success. Many more than me spend half their time in C/Fortran
and half their time in Python.
Absolutely -- and this point has been raised a couple times in
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
just lost the ability to get
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark
Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
If we follow those rules for IGNORE for all computations, we sometimes
get some weird output. For example:
[ [1, 2], [3, 4] ] * [ IGNORE, 7] = [ 15, 31 ]. (Where * is matrix
multiply and not * with broadcasting.) Or should that sort of operation
through an
On 07/06/2011 08:10 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
What I'm saying is that Mark's proposal is more flexible. Say for the
sake of the argument that I have two codes I need to interface with:
- Library A is
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been
talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been
talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people
On 07/06/2011 04:47 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
I just commented on the prevent direct API access to the masking array
part -- I'm hoping direct access by external code to the underlying
implementation
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, semantics...
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
NA (Not Available)
A placeholder for a value which is unknown to computations. That
value may be temporarily hidden with a mask, may have been
On 7/6/2011 10:57 AM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
In article
cabl7cqhnnjkzk9xnrlvdarsdknwrm4ev0mxdurjsaxq73eb...@mail.gmail.com,
Ralf Gommersralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Russell E. Owenro...@uw.edu wrote:
In
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.govwrote:
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
Is this really
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for
So one thing that came up on the call yesterday is that there actually
is a significant chunk of functionality that everyone seems to agree
is useful, needed, and basically how it should work.
This includes:
-- the basic existence and semantics for NA values (however this is
implemented)
--
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
So one thing that came up on the call yesterday is that there actually
is a significant chunk of functionality that everyone seems to agree
is useful, needed, and basically how it should work.
This includes:
-- the basic
Here's the master copy:
https://gist.github.com/1068056
But for your commenting convenience, I'll include the current text here:
A mini-NEP for the where= argument to ufuncs
To try and make more progress
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Christopher Barker
chris.bar...@noaa.govwrote:
Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
If we follow those rules for IGNORE for all computations, we sometimes
get some weird output. For example:
[ [1, 2], [3, 4] ] * [ IGNORE, 7] = [ 15, 31 ]. (Where * is matrix
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
snip
I just commented on the prevent direct API access to the masking array
part -- I'm hoping direct access by external code to the underlying
implementation details will be allowed, at some point.
I
It'd be easier to follow if you just made changes/suggestions on github to
Mark's NEP directly. (You can checkout Mark's missing data branch to get the
NEP.) Then I'll be able to focus on the ways the suggestions differ or
compliment the current NEP.
-Chris Jordan-Squire
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov
wrote:
Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
If we follow those rules for IGNORE for all computations, we sometimes
get some weird output.
On 07/06/2011 02:38 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Christopher Barker
chris.bar...@noaa.gov mailto:chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
If we follow those rules for IGNORE for all computations, we
sometimes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Christopher Barker
chris.bar...@noaa.gov
wrote:
Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
If we follow those
On Jul 6, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Bruce Southey wrote:
On 07/06/2011 02:38 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov
wrote:
Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
If we follow those rules for IGNORE for all computations, we
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Christopher Barker
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
Christopher Barker wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Here's an HPC perspective...:
At least I feel that the transparency of NumPy is a huge part of its
current success. Many more than me spend half their time in C/Fortran
and half their time in Python.
Absolutely -- and this point has
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:26:24PM -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
A mini-NEP for the where= argument to ufuncs
I _love_ this proposal and it would probably be much more useful to me
than the different masked array proposal that are too focused on a
specific usage pattern to answer all my needs.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
I found another empty input edge case. Somewhat recently, we fixed an
issue with np.histogram() and empty inputs (so long as the bins are somehow
known).
np.histogram([], bins=4)
(array([0, 0, 0, 0]), array([ 0. ,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 08:39:37PM +0200, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
As for myself, I'll admit that I'll almost certainly continue with
explicit masking without using any of the proposed NEPs -- I have to be
extremely aware of the masks in the statistical methods I use.
My gut feeling is
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
Christopher Barker wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Here's an HPC perspective...:
At least I feel that the transparency of NumPy is a huge part of its
current success. Many more than me spend half their time in
On 07/06/2011 03:37 PM, Pierre GM wrote:
On Jul 6, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Bruce Southey wrote:
On 07/06/2011 02:38 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Christopher Barkerchris.bar...@noaa.gov
wrote:
Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
If we follow those rules
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
I found another empty input edge case. Somewhat recently, we fixed an issue
with np.histogram() and empty inputs (so long as the bins are
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
I would like to call to the attention of the NumPy community the following call
for papers:
Second Symposium on Advances in Modeling and Analysis Using Python, 22–26
January 2012, New Orleans, Louisiana
The Second Symposium on Advances in Modeling and Analysis Using Python,
sponsored by
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent.
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Christopher Jordan-Squire cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Mark Wiebe
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Christopher Jordan-Squire cjord...@uw.edu
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett
Sorry, but I didn't find a way of inserting inline comments in the gist.
Nathaniel Smith writes:
[...]
Is there any less stupid-looking name than ``where1=`` and ``where2=``
for the ``.outer`` operation? (For that matter, can ``.outer`` be
applied to more than 2 arrays? The docs say it can't,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
(snip discussion of open kimono)
On the other hand, to try and conceal these implementation
differences, seems to me to break my feeling for numpy arrays, and
make me feel I have an object that is rather magic, that I don't fully
understand, and for which clever stuff is going on, under the
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Sorry, but I didn't find a way of inserting inline comments in the gist.
I'm a little confused about how gists work, actually. For actual
discussion, it's probably just as well, since this way everyone sees
the comment on the list and
Well, everyone seems to like my first attempt at this so far, so I
guess I'll really stick my foot in it now... here's my second miniNEP,
which lays out a plan for handling dtype/bit-pattern-style NAs. I've
stolen bits of text from both the NEP and the alterNEP for this, but
since the focus is on
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
snip
Mean value replacement, or
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Well, everyone seems to like my first attempt at this so far, so I
guess I'll really stick my foot in it now... here's my second miniNEP,
which lays out a plan for handling dtype/bit-pattern-style NAs. I've
stolen bits of
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Numpy already has a general mechanism for defining new dtypes and
slotting them in so that they're supported by ndarrays, by the casting
machinery, by ufuncs, and so on. In principle, we could implement
Well,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Numpy already has a general mechanism for defining new dtypes and
slotting them in so that they're supported by ndarrays, by the casting
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Numpy already has a general mechanism for defining new
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Numpy already has a general mechanism for defining new
On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
just lost the ability to get the original value back if you want to stop
ignoring it? Maybe that's not inherent to what an
72 matches
Mail list logo
