Re: [Numpy-discussion] [Numpy-svn] r8457 - trunk

On 6 June 2010 22:49, David wrote: > On 06/07/2010 02:36 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote: >> I guess this changeset is up for discussion, but I'd be very glad if >> we could track the .gitignore. > > I don't think we should. It is easy to set it up by yourself, and it may > hide things that some peo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [Numpy-svn] r8457 - trunk

On 06/07/2010 02:36 PM, Stéfan van der Walt wrote: > I guess this changeset is up for discussion, but I'd be very glad if > we could track the .gitignore. I don't think we should. It is easy to set it up by yourself, and it may hide things that some people may want to see - different people may w

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [Numpy-svn] r8457 - trunk

I guess this changeset is up for discussion, but I'd be very glad if we could track the .gitignore. This makes life a lot easier for everybody using git-svn. Cheers Stéfan On 6 June 2010 20:43, wrote: > Author: charris > Date: 2010-06-06 22:43:07 -0500 (Sun, 06 Jun 2010) > New Revision: 8457 >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Bug in nanmin called with unsigned integers

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Tony S Yu wrote: > > On May 25, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Tony S Yu wrote: > >> I got bit again by this bug with unsigned >> integers. >> (My original changes

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Technicalities of the SVN -> GIT transition

On 06/05/2010 11:43 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:28:52 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote: I think it should be opt-in. How would opt-out work? Would someone create new accounts for all the contributors and then give them access? >>> >>> Just to be clear, this has nothin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] "Dynamic convolution" in Numpy

On 06/07/2010 12:08 AM, Anne Archibald wrote: > > I think the kicker is here: what is the right way to interpolate > between filters? There is no right way that I know of, it really depends on what you are doing. The big issue here is that a filter which changes is obviously not time independen

Re: [Numpy-discussion] memory usage question

On 06/06/2010 02:17 PM, Tom Kuiper wrote: > Greetings all. > > I have a feeling that, coming at this with a background in FORTRAN and > C, I'm missing some subtlety, possibly of an OO nature. Basically, I'm > looping over very large data arrays and memory usage just keeps growing > even though I

[Numpy-discussion] memory usage question

Greetings all. I have a feeling that, coming at this with a background in FORTRAN and C, I'm missing some subtlety, possibly of an OO nature. Basically, I'm looping over very large data arrays and memory usage just keeps growing even though I re-use the arrays. Below is a stripped down versi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] How to resize numpy.memmap?

Hi again, To answer to the second part of my question, here follows an example demonstrating how to "resize" a memmap: >>> fp = numpy.memmap('test.dat', shape=(10,), mode='w+') >>> fp._mmap.resize(11) >>> cp = numpy.ndarray.__new__(numpy.memmap, (fp._mmap.size(),), >>> dtype=fp.dtype, buffer=fp._

[Numpy-discussion] How to resize numpy.memmap?

Hi, I am creating a rather large file (typically 100MBi-1GBi) with numpy.memmap but in some cases the initial estimate to the file size is just few bytes too small. So, I was trying to resize the memmap with a failure as demonstrated with the following example: >>> fp = numpy.memmap('test.dat', s

Re: [Numpy-discussion] "Dynamic convolution" in Numpy

On 6 June 2010 04:44, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, arthur de conihout > wrote: > >> I don't know if i made myself very clear. >> if anyone has suggestions or has already operated a dynamic filtering i >> would be well interested. > > Does fade-in/fade-out actually wor

Re: [Numpy-discussion] "Dynamic convolution" in Numpy

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, arthur de conihout wrote: > I don't know if i made myself very clear. > if anyone has suggestions or has already operated a dynamic filtering i > would be well interested. Does fade-in/fade-out actually works ? I would have thought that it had killed the propertie