On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Peter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if this constitutes "major opposition", but is keeping
> the same C-API for NumPy 1.2 unchanged still a possibility? Please?
Sorry I haven't commented on this yet; I have been busy and am still
thinking about the iss
Hi,
Just a quick note to let you guys know that I'm the one who most
recently revived the discussion on python-dev.
My needs are research and teaching in mathematics. So ideally, the
programming notation should require only minimal explanations, and
(equally importantly), it should be easy to set
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:57:45AM -0400, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> But we apparently agree that PEP 225 meets the need for
> a multiplication operator (with either ~ or @). Do you
> agree with Robert that *only* the multiplication operator is
> needed? (See my previous post.)
No big opinion on that.
Hi Mark
2008/8/19 mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello List -
>
> I am looking for a good polygon class.
>
> My main interest it to be able to figure out if a point is inside or
> outside the polygon, which can have any shape (well, as long as it is
> a polygon).
>
> Any suggestions?
I have optimise
Mark,
I find GDAL/OGR quite useful for manipulating geometries. OGR in particular
allows you to manipulate vector data, and perform simple operations such as
adding/subtracting. It's also easy to plug in matplotlib.
http://www.gdal.org/ogr/
___
Numpy-d
hi,
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Shapely
supports the array interface, and has all the geos geometry operations:
http://gispython.org/shapely/manual.html#contains
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:31 AM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello List -
>
> I am looking for a good polygon class.
>
> My main i
Hello List -
I am looking for a good polygon class.
My main interest it to be able to figure out if a point is inside or
outside the polygon, which can have any shape (well, as long as it is
a polygon).
Any suggestions?
Thanks, Mark
___
Numpy-discussi
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Alan G Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 04:28:55PM -0400, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>> That said, what kind of problems do you have in mind?
>
> Gael Varoquaux wrote:
>> wht I am most worried about is not being able to enter the
>> symbol, bec
Brian Blais wrote:
>>> this should definitely be in the Numpy for Matlab users
>>> page, http://www.scipy.org/NumPy_for_Matlab_Users, right
>>> after the line:
>>> Matlab Numpy Notes
Brian Blais wrote:
> I did put it in! (did it disappear or something?) I also modified the
> prev
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 04:28:55PM -0400, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> That said, what kind of problems do you have in mind?
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> wht I am most worried about is not being able to enter the
> symbol, because I am in an editor I don't know, and the
> symbol is not on my keyboard.
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:04 , Alan G Isaac wrote:
this should definitely be in the Numpy for Matlab users
page, http://www.scipy.org/NumPy_for_Matlab_Users, right
after the line:
Matlab Numpy Notes
I did put it in! (did it disappear or something?) I also modified
the previous
Andrew Straw wrote:
> 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
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 09:49 +0200, Grégory Lielens wrote:
> Using __call__ as matmul:
>b = a.I - ( (a.I)(u) / (c.I + (v/a)(u)) )(v) / a
oups, of course you do not have right-divide in this case, it would thus
read
b = a.I - (a.I) (u) ( ( c.I + (v)(a.I)(u) ).I ) (v) (a.I)
hum, given the
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 11:21 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> Tim Hochberg proposed using the call operator for matrix
> multiplication, i.e.,
>
> A(B(C))
>
> Which has the advantage of using an existing operator. It looks like
> function composition, which isn't that far off the ma
14 matches
Mail list logo
