Hi,
I noticed the following behaviour for empty lists:
In [4]: N.median([])
---
exceptions.IndexErrorTraceback (most recent
call last)
/home/stefan/
/home/stefan/lib/python2.4/site-packages
>> Of course .. that really shouldn't matter if you're just compiling it
>> for yourself for just that cpu.
>>
> On the contrary !
> I'm trying to provide a precompiled build of numpy together with a
> couple a handy
> functions and classes that I made myself,
> to establish Python as a development
On 1/25/07, Steve Lianoglou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Generally speaking, you need to build binaries on the lowest-
> >> versioned OS X that
> >> you intend to run on.
> >>
> > The problem with building on 10.3 is that it generally comes only with
> > gcc 3.3. I remember that some things re
Sebastian Haase wrote:
> The problem with building on 10.3 is that it generally comes only with
> gcc 3.3. I remember that some things require gcc4 - right ?
No, you're right. I thought this might have been available with 10.3.9 (the only
version in the 10.3 series that can run Universal binarie
Ted Horst wrote:
> BTW, This test doesn't work on python 2.3 because sorted does not
> exist there.
Fixed, thank you.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an
BTW, This test doesn't work on python 2.3 because sorted does not
exist there.
Ted
On Jan 13, 2007, at 15:15, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 10:01:59AM -0800, Keith Goodman wrote:
>> On 1/11/07, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Keith Goodman wrote:
Why is t
>> Generally speaking, you need to build binaries on the lowest-
>> versioned OS X that
>> you intend to run on.
>>
> The problem with building on 10.3 is that it generally comes only with
> gcc 3.3. I remember that some things require gcc4 - right ?
I think that might only bite you if you want
On 1/25/07, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastian Haase wrote:
> > Hi!
> > When I try running my code on
> > panther (10.3) with a numpy that was built on tiger (10.4)
> > it can't load numpy because of missing symbols
> > in numpy/core/umath.so
> > The symbols are
> > _acoshl$LDBL128
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:56:54 -0200
"Paulo J. S. Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Em Qui, 2007-01-25 às 19:46 +0100, Nils Wagner escreveu:
>
>>
>> It works if you use
>> M=num.random.rand(2,2)
>>
>> Nils
>>
>
> Yes, it works for arrays but not for matrices. I thought
>that
> scipy.linalg
Sebastian Haase wrote:
> Hi!
> When I try running my code on
> panther (10.3) with a numpy that was built on tiger (10.4)
> it can't load numpy because of missing symbols
> in numpy/core/umath.so
> The symbols are
> _acoshl$LDBL128
> _acosl$LDBL128
> _asinhl$LDBL128
>
> (see my post from 5 oct 200
> For instance
>
> In [7]: def countmembers(a1, a2) :
> ...: a = sort(a2)
> ...: il = a.searchsorted(a1, side='l')
> ...: ir = a.searchsorted(a1, side='r')
> ...: return ir - il
> ...:
>
> In [8]: a2 = random.randint(0,10,(100,))
>
> In [9]: a1 = arange(11)
>
> In [11]:
Em Qui, 2007-01-25 às 19:46 +0100, Nils Wagner escreveu:
>
> It works if you use
> M=num.random.rand(2,2)
>
> Nils
>
Yes, it works for arrays but not for matrices. I thought that
scipy.linalg functions were supposed to work with matrices.
Paulo
__
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:06:23 -0200
"Paulo J. S. Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to write some unit tests to my new
>"Automatic matrix" code
> and I think I bumped into a bug in
>scipy.linalg.lu_factor. If you give a
> matrix to it, it doesn't honor the overwrite_a op
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:06:23 -0200
"Paulo J. S. Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to write some unit tests to my new
>"Automatic matrix" code
> and I think I bumped into a bug in
>scipy.linalg.lu_factor. If you give a
> matrix to it, it doesn't honor the overwrite_a op
Hello,
I am trying to write some unit tests to my new "Automatic matrix" code
and I think I bumped into a bug in scipy.linalg.lu_factor. If you give a
matrix to it, it doesn't honor the overwrite_a option:
In [1]:import numpy as num
In [2]:M = num.mat(num.random.rand(2,2))
In [3]:print M
[[ 0.3
Hi!
When I try running my code on
panther (10.3) with a numpy that was built on tiger (10.4)
it can't load numpy because of missing symbols
in numpy/core/umath.so
The symbols are
_acoshl$LDBL128
_acosl$LDBL128
_asinhl$LDBL128
(see my post from 5 oct 2006:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.pyth
Hi,
the kron(a,b) function seems to allow shapes such as (0,x) or (y,0) only
for the second argument b, not for the first argument a. (See below for
examples.)
Maybe it's too harsh to call it a bug because the result is typically
not defined mathematically. But then why differentiate between allo
George Nurser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-25 02:05]:
> Perhaps compiling python itself with icc might give a useful speedup.
> Apparently somebody managed this for python 2.3 in 2003:
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2003-October/005824.html
Hello George,
I saw that post yesterday, an
Robert Cimrman wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote:
>>
>> In [7]: def countmembers(a1, a2) :
>> ...: a = sort(a2)
>> ...: il = a.searchsorted(a1, side='l')
>> ...: ir = a.searchsorted(a1, side='r')
>> ...: return ir - il
>> ...:
>> The subtraction can be replaced by != to get
Charles R Harris wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/07, Robert Cimrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert Kern wrote:
>> > > Robert Cimrman wrote:
>> > >> Or you could just call unique1d prior to your call to setmember1d -
>> > it
>> > >> w
On 1/24/07, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/24/07, Robert Cimrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Robert Kern wrote:
> > Robert Cimrman wrote:
> >> Or you could just call unique1d prior to your call to setmember1d -
> it
> >> was meant to be used that way... you would not loose
On 25/01/07, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rex wrote:
> >
> > I think it should do much better. A few minutes ago I compiled a C
> > math benchmark with :
> >
> > icc -o3 -parallel -xT
> >
> > and it ran 2.8x as fast as it did when compiled with gcc -o3. In
> > fact, it ran at a lit
22 matches
Mail list logo
