On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that th
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geez, some of those folks in those threads are downright rude.
Python-dev is nowhere nearly as civil as these lists, which I consider
to be an asset of ours which we should always strive to protect. In
this list even
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [ please keep all replies to this only on the numpy list. I'm cc'ing
> the scipy ones to make others aware of the topic, but do NOT reply on
> those lists so we can have an organized thread for future referen
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in
>> 1.2.
>
> It does not make sense to revert those chang
Hi all,
[ please keep all replies to this only on the numpy list. I'm cc'ing
the scipy ones to make others aware of the topic, but do NOT reply on
those lists so we can have an organized thread for future reference]
In the Python-dev mailing lists, there were recently two threads
regarding the p
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in
> 1.2.
It does not make sense to revert those changes anymore, but we keep
having those discussions, and I still don't understand whether t
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Try to look 12 months into the future and ask yourselves if it was
> really a good idea to break the ABI.
>
I'm slowly coming to the conviction that there should be no C-ABI changes in
1.2. And maybe not in 1.3 either,
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:46 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > could have expl replaced by exp. But there are likely other problems that
> > will need fixing.
>
> I think this is red-herring. Do
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> could have expl replaced by exp. But there are likely other problems that
> will need fixing.
I think this is red-herring. Does it really make sense to force
configuring long double as double if the C runtime and com
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Charles R Harris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > There is seems to be a problem in defi
Hello,
I'm pleased to announce that ETS 3.0.0 has just been tagged and
released! Source distributions have been pushed to PyPi and over the
next couple hours, Win32 and OSX binaries will also be uploaded to PyPi.
This means you can install ETS, assuming you have the prereq software
installed, via
Robert Kern wrote:
>
> FWIW, neither PIL nor PyOpenGL have C code which uses numpy arrays, so
> they are entirely unaffected.
OK, so here are some projects which might notice a 1.2 installation, in
as much as they turn up on a google code search for:
#include "numpy/arrayobject.h" -scipy -enth
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is seems to be a problem in defining the functions called for the
> > different types.
>
> I don't know enough about this p
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Charles R Harris <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Char
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> There is seems to be a problem in defining the functions called for the
> different types.
I don't know enough about this part of the code to be sure about the
whole function calls stack, but I would guess this is n
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
>> Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
>> during the 1.* cycle ?
>
>
> Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for
> this change? If it only me
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Turns out that ipython needs to be recompiled also because of the newly
> > added version checking.
>
> I'm sorry, can you clarify this?
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Turns out that ipython needs to be recompiled also because of the newly
> added version checking.
I'm sorry, can you clarify this? ipython has no C code at all, so I'm
not sure what you mean here.
Cheers,
f
___
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Charles R Harris <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charles R Harris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I was just going to look at that; it's n
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Charles R Harris <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Charles R Harris <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> David Cournapeau wrote:
>>> > Does that me
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Charles R Harris <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> David Cournapeau wrote:
>> > Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
>> > during the 1.* cycle ?
>>
>>
>> Can
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
> > Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
> > during the 1.* cycle ?
>
>
> Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for
> this change? If it only
David Cournapeau wrote:
> Does that mean we will continue breaking the ABI from time to time
> during the 1.* cycle ?
Can someone help me to understand me what is the compelling reason for
this change? If it only means everyone recompiles, it is hard to see
what we, as users, are gaining by doi
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I was just going to look at that; it's nice to have the ticket mailing
> list
> > working again. Is there an easy way to force the
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Travis E. Oliphant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Re-compilation is necessary at some point. We have not required
> recompilation for a long time now.Yes, it is a pain for
> distribution, but those who don't want to re-compile can point people to
> 1.1.1 which
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was just going to look at that; it's nice to have the ticket mailing list
> working again. Is there an easy way to force the SIZEOF_LONG_DOUBLE to 8 so
> I can test this on linux?
Changing this line in numpy¥core¥s
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > That's my opinion also, I just thought that -DNOLONGDOUBLE was an easy
> way
> > to force that choice. David thinks that the func
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's my opinion also, I just thought that -DNOLONGDOUBLE was an easy way
> to force that choice. David thinks that the function detection in the ufunc
> module will be a problem.
Forget what I said, I think I used
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Travis E. Oliphant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes. I don't think MS will support "true" long doubles any time soon
> > and this affects printing and the math functions. I'm not sure what
> > the best solution is, there are vario
Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> Yes. I don't think MS will support "true" long doubles any time soon
> and this affects printing and the math functions. I'm not sure what
> the best solution is, there are various possibilities.
>
> 1) We could define the numpy longdouble type to be double, which ma
Jon Wright wrote:
> Travis, Stéfan,
>
> I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
> all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled?
Re-compilation is necessary at some point. We have not required
recompilation for a long time now.Yes, it is a pain for
distr
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1) We could define the numpy longdouble type to be double, which makes us
> compatible with MS and is effectively what numpy compiled with MSVC does
> since MSVC long doubles are doubles. Perhaps this could be done by
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Travis, Stéfan,
> >
> > I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
> > all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled?
Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> To clarify this again: *no* features of C99 were used. The C99 specs were
> only used as a guideline to what behavior we want of complex math
> functions, and I wrote tests for this, and marked failing ones as skipped.
Got it.
> However, it turned out that different test
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't mingw use the MSVC library?
>
> Yes, it does. But long double is both a compiler and library issue.
> sizeof(long double) is
Hi,
Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:25:11 +0200, Christian Heimes wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
>> The current trunk has 14 failures on windows (with mingw). 12 of them
>> are related to C99 (see ticket 869). Can the people involved in recent
>> changes to complex functions take a look at it ? I think this
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't mingw use the MSVC library?
>
> Yes, it does. But long double is both a compiler and library issue.
> sizeof(long double) is
Robert Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Travis, Stéfan,
>>
>> I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
>> all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that
>> all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34, Jon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Travis, Stéfan,
>
> I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
> all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that
> all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/etc users are going to have to
Travis, Stéfan,
I missed Travis mail previously. Are you *really* sure you want force
all C code which uses numpy arrays to be recompiled? If you mean that
all your matplotlib/PIL/pyopengl/etc users are going to have to make a
co-ordinated upgrade, then this seems to be a grave mistake. Does
S
2008/8/16 Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Looking at the code, but not testing it -- this looks fine to me. (I
> wrote the original NPY_VERSION stuff and sent it to Travis, who modified
> and included it.)
>
> I have added a couple of extremely minor points to the code review tool
> -- as much
Looking at the code, but not testing it -- this looks fine to me. (I
wrote the original NPY_VERSION stuff and sent it to Travis, who modified
and included it.)
I have added a couple of extremely minor points to the code review tool
-- as much as a chance to play with the tool as to comment on t
42 matches
Mail list logo
