On 4. mai 2011, at 20.33, Benjamin Root wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Derek Homeier
> wrote:
> On 05.05.2011, at 2:40AM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
>
> > But: Isn't the numpy.atleast_2d and numpy.atleast_1d functions written for
> > this? Shouldn't we reuse them? Perhaps it's overkil
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Derek Homeier <
de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> On 05.05.2011, at 2:40AM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
>
> > But: Isn't the numpy.atleast_2d and numpy.atleast_1d functions written
> for this? Shouldn't we reuse them? Perhaps it's overkill, and perhaps it
On 05.05.2011, at 2:40AM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
> But: Isn't the numpy.atleast_2d and numpy.atleast_1d functions written for
> this? Shouldn't we reuse them? Perhaps it's overkill, and perhaps it will
> reintroduce the 'transposed' problem?
Yes, good point, one could replace the
X.shape = (
On 4. mai 2011, at 17.34, Derek Homeier wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I've got back to your suggestion re. the ndmin flag for loadtxt from a few
> weeks ago...
>
> On 27.03.2011, at 12:09PM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
>
1562:
I attach a possible patch. This could also be the default
be
Hi Paul,
I've got back to your suggestion re. the ndmin flag for loadtxt from a few
weeks ago...
On 27.03.2011, at 12:09PM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
>>> 1562:
>>> I attach a possible patch. This could also be the default
>>> behavior to my mind, since the function caller can simply call
>>
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am pleased to announce the availability of the second release
> candidate of NumPy 1.6.0.
>
> Compared to the first release candidate, one segfault on (32-bit
> Windows + MSVC) and several memory leaks were fixed. If no new
> problems
On 04.05.2011, at 8:42PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> ==
> FAIL: test_return_character.TestF90ReturnCharacter.test_all
> --
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> Fil
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can imagine that this is low-priority, but I have just been enjoying
>> pytox for automated virtualenv testing:
>>
>> http://codespeak.net/tox/index.html
>>
>> w
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Ilan Schnell wrote:
> I'm seeing these three failures on Solaris 5.10 (x86_64, using Python
> 2.7.1):
>
> ==
> FAIL: Test basic arithmetic function errors
>
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Derek Homeier <
> de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ralf,
>>
>> > I am pleased to announce the availability of the second release
>> > candidate of NumPy 1.6.0.
>> >
>> > Compared to th
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:24 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Christoph Gohlke
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/3/2011 11:18 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am pleased to announce the availability of the second r
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can imagine that this is low-priority, but I have just been enjoying
> pytox for automated virtualenv testing:
>
> http://codespeak.net/tox/index.html
>
> which revealed that numpy download-build-install via easy_install
> (distribut
Hi,
I can imagine that this is low-priority, but I have just been enjoying
pytox for automated virtualenv testing:
http://codespeak.net/tox/index.html
which revealed that numpy download-build-install via easy_install
(distribute) fails with the appended traceback ending in "ValueError:
'build/py
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:14, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> I can't speak for the rest of the group, but as for myself, if you
>> would like to draft such a letter, I'm sure I will agree with its
>> contents.
>
> Thank you - sadly I am not c
Hi,
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:07, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
This is just to follow up on a dead
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Christoph Groth wrote:
> Dear numpy experts,
>
> I have noticed that with Numpy 1.5.1 the operation
>
> m[::2] += 1.0
>
> takes twice as long as
>
> t = m[::2]
> t += 1.0
>
> where "m" is some large matrix. This is of course because the first
> snippet is equivale
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 08:19, Christoph Groth wrote:
> Dear numpy experts,
>
> I have noticed that with Numpy 1.5.1 the operation
>
> m[::2] += 1.0
>
> takes twice as long as
>
> t = m[::2]
> t += 1.0
>
> where "m" is some large matrix. This is of course because the first
> snippet is equivalent
Dear numpy experts,
I have noticed that with Numpy 1.5.1 the operation
m[::2] += 1.0
takes twice as long as
t = m[::2]
t += 1.0
where "m" is some large matrix. This is of course because the first
snippet is equivalent to
t = m[::2]
t += 1.0
m[::2] = t
I wonder whether it would not be a good
=
EuroScipy 2011 - Deadline Approaching
=
Beware: talk submission deadline is approaching.
You can submit your contribution until Sunday May 8.
-
The 4th European meeting on Python
19 matches
Mail list logo
