[Numpy-discussion] Discussion around How-to ,Tutorials.

Hello Melissa , Are we having our Docs meeting on 20th July ? If yes , then could we have some discussion around the structure of tutorials ,how-to sections . I wanted to discuss how we are planning to distinguish between the two , should the How-to be straightforward solutions like here

[Numpy-discussion] Augment unique method

It would be handy to add "atol" and "rtol" optional arguments to the "unique" method. I'm proposing this since uniqueness is a bit vague for floats. This change would be clearly backwards-compatible. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@pyth

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Augment unique method

One issue with adding a tolerance to np.unique for floats is say you have [0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5] with atol=0.15 Should this return a single element or multiple ones? One once side each consecutive float is closer than the tolerance to the next one but the first one and the last one are c

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Augment unique method

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:41 AM Roman Yurchak wrote: > One issue with adding a tolerance to np.unique for floats is say you have > [0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5] with atol=0.15 > > Should this return a single element or multiple ones? One once side each > consecutive float is closer than the tol

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Discussion around How-to ,Tutorials.

Hello, Mrinal Yes, we are having our meeting on monday (more information in a message still to come). Right now, our idea of what tutorials and how-tos are comes from Daniele Procida [1] (detailed in NEP 44 [2]). However, I believe the discussion around exactly what we will cover or try to achiev

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Augment unique method

I see your point. How about passing number of significant figures instead of atol. In fact, that’s what I originally intended but I thought that it could be expressed via atol and rtol, whereas number of significant figures doesn’t seem to suffer from the ambiguity you pointed out. From:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Augment unique method

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 1:04 PM wrote: > I see your point. How about passing number of significant figures instead > of atol. > > > > In fact, that’s what I originally intended but I thought that it could be > expressed via atol and rtol, whereas number of significant figures doesn’t > seem to su