Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Charles R Harris wrote: > > > Well, so it goes. I don't see any reasonable way to fix that. I wonder > how recent the cython size check is? See related discussion on Cython ML - the problem is known for some time. That's when cython fixed the error into a warning that I started looking into

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:28 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM, David Cournapeau > > mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp>> wrote: > > > > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David C

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM, David Cournapeau > mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp>> wrote: > > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau > mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp> > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:16 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > > I don't see any struct definitions there, it looks clean. > > Any struct defined outside numpy/core/include is fine to change at will > as far as ABI is concerned anyway, so no need to check anything

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau > > wrote: > > > > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Co

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Charles R Harris wrote: > > > I don't see any struct definitions there, it looks clean. Any struct defined outside numpy/core/include is fine to change at will as far as ABI is concerned anyway, so no need to check anything :) David ___ NumPy-Discus

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Darren Dale wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Darren Dale wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Charles R Harris > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Darren Dale wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Charles R Harris w

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau > mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp> > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Darren Dale wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau > > > wrote: > >> > >> Charles R Harris wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau <

[Numpy-discussion] Cholesky update/downdate?

Hi everyone, Does anyone know if there is an implementation of rank 1 updates (and "downdates") to a Cholesky factorization in NumPy or SciPy? It looks there are a bunch of routines for it in LINPACK, but not LAPACK. Thanks, David ___ NumPy-Discussio

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Is it just the metadata element in the dtype structure or were other objects affected. -- (mobile phone of) Travis Oliphant Enthought, Inc. 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:12 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Charles R Harris wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau > wrote: >> >> Charles R Harris wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau > > > wrote: >> > >> >     josef.p...@gmail.com <

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau > > wrote: > > > > josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > scipy is relatively easy t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > > scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, > > pytables and pymc (b/c

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > > scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, > > pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with > > numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. > > As I said, all of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > scipy is relatively easy to compile, I was thinking also of h5py, > pytables and pymc (b/c of pytables), none of them are importing with > numpy 1.4.0 because of the cython issue. As I said, all of them will have to be regenerated with cython 0.12.1. There is no oth

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:36 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > >> So 1.4.1  wouldn't resolve the cython issue, packages that use cython >> still would need to be refreshed and recompiled, but non-cython >> packages should run without recompiling? > > It is impossible to s

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > So 1.4.1 wouldn't resolve the cython issue, packages that use cython > still would need to be refreshed and recompiled, but non-cython > packages should run without recompiling? It is impossible to solve the cython issue in numpy. The only solution is to regenerate

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:23 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Travis Oliphant wrote: > >> >> This is true, but you could make a NumPy 1.4.x binary and the old >> SciPy binary would still presumably work. > > There is still the cython issue, although it concerns only some packages > (stats and spatial

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Travis Oliphant wrote: > > This is true, but you could make a NumPy 1.4.x binary and the old > SciPy binary would still presumably work. There is still the cython issue, although it concerns only some packages (stats and spatial IIRC), and there is an error message at least. I regenerated th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > I do think a 1.4.1 should be released without the datetime changes just > > so there would be an updated version out there for slow adopters. We > > wouldn't maintain it, though, it would be the end of the 1

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Feb 11, 2010, at 7:03 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Charles R Harris wrote: >> >> I do think a 1.4.1 should be released without the datetime changes >> just >> so there would be an updated version out there for slow adopters. We >> wouldn't maintain it, though, it would be the end of the 1.x

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Charles R Harris wrote: > > I do think a 1.4.1 should be released without the datetime changes just > so there would be an updated version out there for slow adopters. We > wouldn't maintain it, though, it would be the end of the 1.x line. We could make a source release - we could do it from th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:46, Christopher Barker wrote: > One question: > > Does anyone think it's a good idea to provide any support for numpy > version selection, similar to wxPython's wxversion? -1. It complicates packaging and distribution substantially. -- Robert Kern "I have come to bel

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Robert Kern wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:23, Charles R Harris > wrote: > >> What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? > > Only if it were *really* necessary for the Python 3 port. Otherwise, I > would resist the urge. Me too, on the basis that 2.4 is the default ver

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

One question: Does anyone think it's a good idea to provide any support for numpy version selection, similar to wxPython's wxversion? What it does is allow an installation to have default version that gets imported with "import wx". Optionally, other versions can be installed, and selected by

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Feb 11, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:23, Charles R Harris wrote: What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? Only if it were *really* necessary for the Python 3 port. Otherwise, I would resist the urge. My understanding is NumPy 2

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 18:23, Charles R Harris wrote: > What about python version? Do we want to bump that up from 2.4? Only if it were *really* necessary for the Python 3 port. Otherwise, I would resist the urge. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a ha

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Pierre GM wrote: > > Jus to make sure I understand: > > * 2.0 will be w/ datetime support and corresponds to the current trunk > > * 1.5 will be w/o datetime support ? > > I may have misunderstood, but my un

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Pierre GM wrote: > Jus to make sure I understand: > * 2.0 will be w/ datetime support and corresponds to the current trunk > * 1.5 will be w/o datetime support ? I may have misunderstood, but my understanding is that there will be no 1.5 release under the current

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

to, 2010-02-11 kello 16:38 -0600, Travis Oliphant kirjoitti: [clip] > Pauli, David, and Stephan, how opposed are you to numbering the next > release as NumPy 2.0 with no experimental tag or the like. If you > three could also agree. I could see my way through to supporting a > NumPy 2.0 release

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Hi, >  I don't want to go the route of marking things "experimental" which David's > pro-1.5 vote seemed to advocate.   From what I gathered, Pauli, David, and I > were 1.5 with various degrees of opinion and Charles, and Robert are 2.0. >  Others that I know about:  Stephan is 1.5, Jarrod is 2.0,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Feb 11, 2010, at 5:57 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt >>> >>> On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale wrote: 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt : > On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt >> >> On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale wrote: >> > 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt : >> >> On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris >> >> wrote: >> >>> Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >  I don't want to go the route of marking things "experimental" which David's > pro-1.5 vote seemed to advocate. In that case, I prefer the new release to be marked as 2.0. There will then be no new numpy 1.4.x, and scipy will be built aga

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:05 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: "...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules here:" Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. It would be simple if it were not for the obligation o

[Numpy-discussion] Save the date: SciPy 2010 June 28 - July 3

The annual US Scientific Computing with Python Conference, SciPy, has been held at Caltech since it began in 2001. While we always love an excuse to go to California, it’s also important to make sure that we allow everyone an opportunity to attend the conference. So, as Jarrod Millman annou

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

Friedrich Romstedt wrote: > 2010/2/11 Keith Goodman : >> The problem I have now is that I don't know where to place the line of >> code that changes the meaning of numpy's equal. I don't know when >> someone will do > > Well, I think a solution is as written before to put a test whether > the othe

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

2010/2/11 Keith Goodman : > The problem I have now is that I don't know where to place the line of > code that changes the meaning of numpy's equal. I don't know when > someone will do Well, I think a solution is as written before to put a test whether the other operand is in fact a myclass instan

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

2010/2/11 Robert Kern : > It turns certain specifically-written generators into full context managers. > >  http://docs.python.org/library/contextlib#contextlib.contextmanager Ok, thanks! I didn't know about before. (To the anonymous reader seeking for information as me: http://www.python.org/dev

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 15:14, Friedrich Romstedt wrote: >> Did you omit the @contextmanager decorator? > > Oh, yes! I guessed it would mean: In module contextmanager you write > what follows after the colon? What does this decoration do? It turns certain specifically-written generators into full

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 14:40, Keith Goodman wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Friedrich Romstedt >> wrote: Hey! You broke my numpy  :) >> def addbug(x, y):   ...:     return x - y   ...: >> old_funcs =

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

> Did you omit the @contextmanager decorator? Oh, yes! I guessed it would mean: In module contextmanager you write what follows after the colon? What does this decoration do? Friedrich ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

2010/2/11 : > If this is global it won't work, because only the last package that > changes it wins. ?? Hm, at the current implementation of upy you're right, but I think you can do in the resp. module like: original_numpy_ops = numpy.set_numeric_ops() [ ... implementation of my_add_object, cal

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 15:03, Friedrich Romstedt wrote: > Robert Kern: >> def numpy_ops(**ops): >>    old_ops = np.set_numeric_ops(**ops) >>    try: >>        yield >>    finally: >>        np.set_numeric_ops(**old_ops) >> >> >> with numpy_ops(multiply=...): >>    print np.array([1, 2, 3]) * np.a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

Robert Kern: > def numpy_ops(**ops): >    old_ops = np.set_numeric_ops(**ops) >    try: >        yield >    finally: >        np.set_numeric_ops(**old_ops) > > > with numpy_ops(multiply=...): >    print np.array([1, 2, 3]) * np.array([1, 2, 3]) Well, at least for me in Py 2.5 this fails with: Att

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 14:40, Keith Goodman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Friedrich Romstedt > wrote: >>> Hey! You broke my numpy  :) >>> > def addbug(x, y): >>>   ...:     return x - y >>>   ...: > old_funcs = np.set_numeric_ops(add=addbug) > np.array([1]) + np.array([1

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:43 PM, wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Keith Goodman wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Friedrich Romstedt >> wrote: Hey! You broke my numpy  :) >> def addbug(x, y):   ...:     return x - y   ...: >> old_funcs = np.set_num

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Keith Goodman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Friedrich Romstedt > wrote: >>> Hey! You broke my numpy  :) >>> > def addbug(x, y): >>>   ...:     return x - y >>>   ...: > old_funcs = np.set_numeric_ops(add=addbug) > np.array([1]) + np.array(

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Friedrich Romstedt wrote: >> Hey! You broke my numpy  :) >> def addbug(x, y): >>   ...:     return x - y >>   ...: old_funcs = np.set_numeric_ops(add=addbug) np.array([1]) + np.array([1]) >>   array([0]) > Yea, that's what I meant.  Great. > > :-) :

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

> Hey! You broke my numpy  :) > >>> def addbug(x, y): >   ...:     return x - y >   ...: >>> old_funcs = np.set_numeric_ops(add=addbug) >>> np.array([1]) + np.array([1]) >   array([0]) Yea, that's what I meant. Great. :-) :-) Friedrich ___ NumPy-Discus

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Friedrich Romstedt wrote: > Hi Keith, > > 2010/2/11 Keith Goodman : >> Is there some way to tell numpy to use my __eq__ instead of its own? >> That would solve my problem. I had a similar problem with __radd__ >> which was solved by setting __array_priority__ = 10

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

Oh Sorry, I typed some keys, don't know what I did precisely, but the message was sent prematurely. Now I repeat: Hi Keith, 2010/2/11 Keith Goodman : > Is there some way to tell numpy to use my __eq__ instead of its own? > That would solve my problem. I had a similar problem with __radd__ > which

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

Hi Keith, 2010/2/11 Keith Goodman : > Is there some way to tell numpy to use my __eq__ instead of its own? > That would solve my problem. I had a similar problem with __radd__ > which was solved by setting __array_priority__ = 10. But that doesn't > work in this case. It's quite simple, but hidde

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt > On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale wrote: > > 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt : > >> On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris > wrote: > >>> Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. > >> > >> I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surpris

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Friedrich Romstedt wrote: > Keith Goodman: >> No one answered my post either  :( >> >> http://old.nabble.com/arrays-and-__eq__-td26987903.html#a26987903 >> >> Is it the same issue? > > First, before I post the package on github, I dived into Keith's > problem, and

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On 11 February 2010 15:38, Darren Dale wrote: > 2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt : >> On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >>> Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. >> >> I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised >> when 1.5 is released with ABI change

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt : > Could you please put your "undarray" as well as the ufunc-wrapper > online (preferably in a repository) so that we can have a look? Done, github.com/friedrichromsted/upy . Have fun with it :-) ! And thanks a lot in advance for your help. You will easily locate t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Scalar-ndarray arguments passed to not_equal

Keith Goodman: > No one answered my post either :( > > http://old.nabble.com/arrays-and-__eq__-td26987903.html#a26987903 > > Is it the same issue? First, before I post the package on github, I dived into Keith's problem, and here comes the explanation to the wreid behaviour: I used the code: cl

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

2010/2/11 Stéfan van der Walt : > On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris wrote: >> Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. > > I'm going with the element of least surprise: no one will be surprised > when 1.5 is released with ABI changes I'll buy you a doughnut if that turns out to be correct

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

Hi, > Just a comment: I would like to point out that there is (necessarily) > some arbitrary threshold to who is being recognized as "people who are > actively writing the code". Over the last year, I have posted fixes > for multiple bugs and extended the ufunc wrapping mechanisms > (__array_prepa

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > "...this should be purely technical IMO. There are well established rules > here:" > > Simple, eh. The version should be 2.0. It would be simple if it were not for the obligation of getting it soon, in a matter of weeks. This means fi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Removing datetime support for 1.4.x series ?

On 11 February 2010 09:52, Charles R Harris wrote: >> we don't stand much to lose by naming >> this next ABI-breaking release 1.5. > > Except the accepted policy will be discarded and we will have to start all > over again. We can't change policy on a whim and still maintain that we > *have* a pol