Re: [Numpy-discussion] Output type of round is inconsistent with python built-in

2020-02-26 Thread josef . pktd
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:57 PM wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:09 PM Robert Kern wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 5:27 PM wrote: >> >>> great another object array >>> >>> np.asarray([round(x_i.item()) for x_i in np.array([1, 2.5, 2e20, >>> 2e200])]) >>> array([1, 2, 2

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Output type of round is inconsistent with python built-in

2020-02-26 Thread josef . pktd
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:09 PM Robert Kern wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 5:27 PM wrote: > >> great another object array >> >> np.asarray([round(x_i.item()) for x_i in np.array([1, 2.5, 2e20, 2e200])]) >> array([1, 2, 2, >> >> >> 1394662444250207233189490

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Output type of round is inconsistent with python built-in

2020-02-26 Thread josef . pktd
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 5:30 PM Ilhan Polat wrote: > Does this mean that np.round(np.float32(5)) return a 64 bit upcasted int? > > That would be really awkward for many reasons pandas frame size being > bloated just by rounding for an example. Or numpy array size growing for no > apparent reason

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Output type of round is inconsistent with python built-in

2020-02-26 Thread josef . pktd
great another object array np.asarray([round(x_i.item()) for x_i in np.array([1, 2.5, 2e20, 2e200])]) array([1, 2, 2, 139466244425020723318949006550910047252964835019006936968711081510683926768094125037360550248319477648163642714687365569692787700820944797557

Re: [Numpy-discussion] New DTypes: Are scalars a central concept in NumPy or not?

2020-02-22 Thread josef . pktd
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:41 AM wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:34 AM wrote: > >> not having a hashable tuple conversion would be a strong limitation >> >> a = tuple(np.arange(5)) >> versus >> a = tuple([np.array(i) for i in range(5)]) >> {a:5} >> > > also there is the question of which s

Re: [Numpy-discussion] New DTypes: Are scalars a central concept in NumPy or not?

2020-02-22 Thread josef . pktd
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:34 AM wrote: > not having a hashable tuple conversion would be a strong limitation > > a = tuple(np.arange(5)) > versus > a = tuple([np.array(i) for i in range(5)]) > {a:5} > also there is the question of which scalar .item() versus [()] This was used in the old times

Re: [Numpy-discussion] New DTypes: Are scalars a central concept in NumPy or not?

2020-02-22 Thread josef . pktd
not having a hashable tuple conversion would be a strong limitation a = tuple(np.arange(5)) versus a = tuple([np.array(i) for i in range(5)]) {a:5} Josef On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:28 AM Evgeni Burovski wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Just to clarify the difference: > > >>> x = np.float64(42) > >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] recent changes in np.maximum.accumulate ?

2020-02-18 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:43 AM Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 10:14 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > I'm trying to track down test failures of statsmodels against recent > > master dev versions of numpy and scipy. > > > > The core computation is the following in one set of

[Numpy-discussion] recent changes in np.maximum.accumulate ?

2020-02-18 Thread josef . pktd
I'm trying to track down test failures of statsmodels against recent master dev versions of numpy and scipy. The core computation is the following in one set of tests that fail pvals_corrected_raw = pvals * np.arange(ntests, 0, -1) pvals_corrected = np.maximum.accumulate(pvals_cor

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Possible Deprecation of np.ediff1d

2018-08-27 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37 AM Robert Kern > wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:30 AM Tyler Reddy >> wrote: >> >>> Chuck suggested ( https://github.com/numpy/ >>> numpy/pull/11805#issuecomment-416069436 ) that we may want to c

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-11 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:26 AM, wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:43 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Robert Kern >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:04 PM Ralf Gommers >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Robert Kern >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-11 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:43 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Robert Kern > wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:04 PM Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Robert Kern >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 5:27 PM Ralf Gommer

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-10 Thread josef . pktd
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 5:27 PM Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Robert Kern > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:22 PM Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >>> > >>> It may be worth having a look at test suites for s

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-04 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 AM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 10:27 PM wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:22 PM Ralf Gommers >>> wrote: >>> It may be worth having a look at test suites for scipy, statsmodel

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-03 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:22 PM Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> It may be worth having a look at test suites for scipy, statsmodels, >> scikit-learn, etc. and estimate how much work this NEP causes those >> projects. If the devs of those packages

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-03 Thread josef . pktd
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:46 PM wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Robert Kern >> wrote: >> >>> >>> The list of ``StableRandom`` methods should be chosen to support unit tests: * ``.randint()`` * ``.u

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-03 Thread josef . pktd
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > As promised distressingly many months ago, I have written up a NEP about > relaxing the stream-compatibility policy that we currently have. > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11229 > https://github.com/rkern/numpy/blob/nep/rng/doc/neps/ >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-03 Thread josef . pktd
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:04 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 6:01 PM wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:36 PM, Robert Kern >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Eric Wieser >>> wrote: >>> You make a bunch of good points refuting reproducible research as an

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-03 Thread josef . pktd
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:36 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Eric Wieser > wrote: > >> You make a bunch of good points refuting reproducible research as an >> argument for not changing the random number streams. >> >> However, there’s a second use-case you don’t address -

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy

2018-06-03 Thread josef . pktd
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > Moving some of the Github PR comments here: > > Implementation >> -- >> >> We propose first freezing ``RandomState`` as it is and developing a new >> RNG >> subsystem alongside it. This allows anyone who has been relying on our >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent results for the covariance matrix between scipy.optimize.curve_fit and numpy.polyfit

2018-05-29 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Tammo Siebert < jotasi_numpy_sc...@posteo.de> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 10:47 -0400, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Jonathan Tammo Siebert < > > jotasi_numpy_sc...@posteo.de> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I hope th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent results for the covariance matrix between scipy.optimize.curve_fit and numpy.polyfit

2018-05-29 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Jonathan Tammo Siebert < jotasi_numpy_sc...@posteo.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I hope this is the appropriate place to ask something like > this, otherwise please let me know (or feel free to ignore > this). Also I hope that I do not misunderstood something or > did some

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adding fweights and aweights to numpy.corrcoef

2018-05-11 Thread josef . pktd
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Corin Hoad wrote: > Are there any further thoughts on this? If it's simply allowing corrcoef > to hand off the keyword arguments to cov I can make a simple PR with the > change. > No further thoughts from my side. I don't see a problem. Aside: And the degrees of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adding fweights and aweights to numpy.corrcoef

2018-04-26 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > I seem to recall that there was a discussion on this and it was a lot > trickier then expected. > But given that numpy has the weights already for cov, then I don't see any additional issues whith adding it also to corrcoef. corrcoef is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] round(numpy.float64(0.0)) is a numpy.float64

2018-03-26 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> > Even knowing that, it's still confusing that round(np.float64(0.0)) >> > isn't the same as round(0.0). The reason is a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PR to add a function to calculate histogram edges without calculating the histogram

2018-03-16 Thread josef . pktd
passing a list of arrays would be useful (aside of discriminating between list and array_like) In that case I would add a keyword like "within=True" to compute the additional statistics like std or iqr on the group demeaned data. This would remove the effect of (mean-)shifted datasets on those aux

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PR to add a function to calculate histogram edges without calculating the histogram

2018-03-12 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Eric Wieser wrote: >> Given that the bin selection are data driven, transferring them across >> datasets might not be so useful. > > The main application would be to compute bins across the union of all > datasets. This is already possibly by using `np.histogram`

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PR to add a function to calculate histogram edges without calculating the histogram

2018-03-12 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Eric Wieser wrote: > As likely one of the primary users, Tom - does the function name seem > reasonable? > > Eric > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 21:45 Thomas Caswell wrote: >> >> As commented in the OP, this would be very useful for Matplotlib. >> >> Tom >> >> On Fri

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-30 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Allan Haldane wrote: > On 01/30/2018 04:54 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Allan Haldane > > wrote: > > > > On 01/30/2018 01:33 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-30 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Allan Haldane wrote: > On 01/30/2018 01:33 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > AFAICS, one problem is that the padded view didn't come with the > > matching down stream usage support, the pack function as mentioned, an > > alternative way to convert to a standard

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-30 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:33 PM, wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Allan Haldane > wrote: > >> On 01/29/2018 11:50 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Allan Haldane >> > wrote: >>> >>> On 01/29/2018 05:5

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-30 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:42 PM, wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:33 PM, wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Allan Haldane >> wrote: >> >>> On 01/29/2018 11:50 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Allan Haldane >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-30 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Allan Haldane wrote: > On 01/29/2018 11:50 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Allan Haldane > > wrote: >> >> On 01/29/2018 05:59 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-30 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Eric Wieser wrote: > Because dtypes were low level with clear memory layout and stayed that way > > Dtypes have supported padded and out-of-order-fields since at least 2005 > (v0.8.4) >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-29 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Allan Haldane wrote: > On 01/29/2018 05:59 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM, > josef.p...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Allan Haldane >> mailto:allanhald...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-29 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM, wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Allan Haldane > wrote: > >> On 01/29/2018 04:02 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Root > > > wrote: >> > >> > I <3 structured arr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-29 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Allan Haldane wrote: > On 01/29/2018 04:02 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Root > > wrote: > > > > I <3 structured arrays. I love the fact that I can access data by > > row

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-29 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > I <3 structured arrays. I love the fact that I can access data by row and > then by fieldname, or vice versa. There are times when I need to pass just > a column into a function, and there are times when I need to process things > row by row

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-29 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:10:56 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Given that there is pandas, xarray, dask and more, numpy could as well >> drop >> any pretense of supporting dataframe_likes. Or, adjust the recfunctions so >> we can

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-29 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Eric Wieser wrote: > I think that there's a lot of confusion going around about recarrays vs > structured arrays. > > [`recarray`](https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/v1.13.0/ > numpy/core/records.py) are a wrapper around structured arrays that > provide: > * Attr

[Numpy-discussion] runtime warning in linalg.det

2018-01-27 Thread josef . pktd
I'm trying to figure out some warnings in the statsmodels test suite Why do the following raise RuntimeWarnings? np.linalg.det(np.ones((3,3))) C:\...\python-3.4.4.amd64\lib\site-packages\numpy\linalg\linalg.py:1776: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in det r = _umath_linalg.det(a, sig

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Setting custom dtypes and 1.14

2018-01-26 Thread josef . pktd
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Allan Haldane > wrote: > >> As I remember, numpy has some fairly convoluted code for array creation >> which tries to make sense of various nested lists/tuples/ndarray >> combinations. It makes a difference f

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Multiple-field indexing: view vs copy in 1.14+

2018-01-25 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Stefan van der Walt > wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:11:08 -0500, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote: > >> > >> I think on the consistency argument is perhaps the most important:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Multiple-field indexing: view vs copy in 1.14+

2018-01-22 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Allan Haldane wrote: > On 01/22/2018 10:53 AM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> This is similar to the above example >> a[['a', 'c']].view('i8') >> but it doesn't try to combine fields. >> >> In many examples where I used structured dtypes a long time ago, >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Multiple-field indexing: view vs copy in 1.14+

2018-01-22 Thread josef . pktd
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM, wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Allan Haldane > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> We are making a decision (again) about what to do about the >> behavior of multiple-field indexing of structured arrays: Should >> it return a view or a copy, and on what

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Multiple-field indexing: view vs copy in 1.14+

2018-01-22 Thread josef . pktd
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Allan Haldane wrote: > Hello all, > > We are making a decision (again) about what to do about the > behavior of multiple-field indexing of structured arrays: Should > it return a view or a copy, and on what release schedule? > > As a reminder, this refers to opera

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

2018-01-19 Thread josef . pktd
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. > > To recap, our curren

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.0 release

2018-01-13 Thread josef . pktd
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > I assume you mean 1.14.0, rather than 1.4.0? Yes, typo > > Did recarrays change? I didn't see anything in the release notes. I didn't look at the details. thequackdaddy is doing the hunting. maybe it's the loadtxt interaction one problem is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.14.0 release

2018-01-13 Thread josef . pktd
statsmodels does not work with numpy 1.4.0 Besides the missing WarningsManager there seems to be 22 errors or failures from changes in numpy behavior, mainly from recarrays again. Josef ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for > >> end-users -- they're certainly useful

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?

2017-11-30 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would > be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix > class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multip

Re: [Numpy-discussion] is __array_ufunc__ ready for prime-time?

2017-11-02 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > Duck typing is great and all for classes that implement some or all of the > ndarray interface but remember what the main reason for asarray() and > asanyarray(): to automatically promote lists and tuples and other > "array-likes" to ndar

Re: [Numpy-discussion] is __array_ufunc__ ready for prime-time?

2017-11-02 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Josef, > > Indeed, for some applications one would like to have different units > for different parts of an array. And that means that, at present, the > quantity implementations that we have are no good a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] is __array_ufunc__ ready for prime-time?

2017-11-02 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Ryan May wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:56 AM, wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:46 AM, wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nathan Goldbaum >>> wrote: >>> I think the biggest issues could be resolved if __array_concatenate__ were finis

Re: [Numpy-discussion] is __array_ufunc__ ready for prime-time?

2017-11-02 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Ryan May wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:46 AM, wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nathan Goldbaum >> wrote: >> >>> I think the biggest issues could be resolved if __array_concatenate__ >>> were finished. Unfortunately I don't feel like I can ta

Re: [Numpy-discussion] is __array_ufunc__ ready for prime-time?

2017-11-02 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Josef, > > astropy's Quantity is well developed and would give similar results to > pint; all those results make sense if one wants to have consistent > units. A general library code will actually do the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] is __array_ufunc__ ready for prime-time?

2017-11-02 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:46 AM, wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nathan Goldbaum > wrote: > >> I think the biggest issues could be resolved if __array_concatenate__ >> were finished. Unfortunately I don't feel like I can take that on right now. >> >> See Ryan May's talk at scipy abou

Re: [Numpy-discussion] is __array_ufunc__ ready for prime-time?

2017-11-02 Thread josef . pktd
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > I think the biggest issues could be resolved if __array_concatenate__ were > finished. Unfortunately I don't feel like I can take that on right now. > > See Ryan May's talk at scipy about using an ndarray subclass for units and > the issues

Re: [Numpy-discussion] is __array_ufunc__ ready for prime-time?

2017-10-31 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:15 PM, William Sheffler wrote: > Thank you all kindly for your responses! Based on your encouragement, I > will pursue an ndarray subclass / __array_ufunc__ implementation. I had > been toying with np.set_numeric_ops, which is less than ideal (for example, > np.ndarray.a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Github overview change

2017-10-18 Thread josef . pktd
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Sebastian Berg < > sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> probably silly, but is anyone else annoyed at not seeing comments >> anymore in the github overview

[Numpy-discussion] I love integers

2017-09-21 Thread josef . pktd
After many hours of debugging deep inside a hessian that sometimes produced weird results. In [48]: (-y**2 * (y - 1)) / (y**2. * (y - 1)) Out[48]: array([[ -1.e+00], [ -1.77041643e-03], [ 5.80863636e-04], [ -5.37729923e-03], [ -1.74809893e-03], [ 2.254

Re: [Numpy-discussion] power function distribution or power-law distribution?

2017-08-24 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:57 PM, wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Renato Fabbri > wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Nathan Goldbaum >> wrote: >> >>> The latest version of numpy is 1.13. >>> >>> In this case, as described in the docs, a power function distribution is >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] power function distribution or power-law distribution?

2017-08-24 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Renato Fabbri wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Nathan Goldbaum > wrote: > >> The latest version of numpy is 1.13. >> >> In this case, as described in the docs, a power function distribution is >> one with a probability desnity function of the form ax^(

Re: [Numpy-discussion] quantile() or percentile()

2017-08-13 Thread josef . pktd
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Eric Wieser > wrote: > >> Let’s try and keep this on topic - most replies to this message has been >> about #9211, which is an orthogonal issue. >> >> There are two main questions here: >> >>1. Wo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scipy 2017 NumPy sprint

2017-07-08 Thread josef . pktd
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Ryan May wrote: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk < > m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I doubt I'm really the last one thinking ndarray subclassing is a good >> idea, but as that was stated, I feel I should at least pipe in.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Boolean binary '-' operator

2017-06-28 Thread josef . pktd
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > My two ¢: keep things as they are. There is just two much code that > uses the C definition of bools, 0=False, 1=True. Coupled with casting > every outcome that is unequal to 0 as True, * as AND, + as OR, a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] PyRSB: Python interface to librsb sparse matrices library

2017-06-24 Thread josef . pktd
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 22:58 +0200, Carl Kleffner wrote: > > Does this still apply: https://scipy.github.io/old-wiki/pages/License > > _Compatibility.html > > > > Of course, but it talks about putting it into the code base of scipy > not abo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [SciPy-Dev] PyRSB: Python interface to librsb sparse matrices library

2017-06-24 Thread josef . pktd
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Jun 24, 2017 7:29 AM, "Sylvain Corlay" > wrote: > > > Also, one quick question: is the LGPL license a deliberate choice or is it > not important to you? Most projects in the Python scientific stack are BSD > licensed. So the LGPL choic

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: smaller representation of string arrays

2017-04-26 Thread josef . pktd
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Apr 26, 2017 9:30 AM, "Chris Barker - NOAA Federal" > wrote: > > > UTF-8 does not match the character-oriented Python text model. Plenty > of people argue that that isn't the "correct" model for Unicode text > -- maybe so, but it is the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: smaller representation of string arrays

2017-04-25 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Robert Kern wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal >> wrote: >> >> >> Presumably you're getting byte strings (with unknown encoding. >> > >> > No -- thus is for cre