On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 20:49, Bruce Southey wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:58, Bruce Southey wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> How do you create a 'single' structured array using np.array()?
>>> Basically I am attempting to do something like this tha
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:58, Bruce Southey wrote:
>> Hi,
>> How do you create a 'single' structured array using np.array()?
>> Basically I am attempting to do something like this that does not work:
>> a=np.array([1,2, 3,4, 5,6], dtype=np.dt
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 10:32:17 +0200, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> >> OK, the format for that part of the signature is in line 4910 in
> >> ufunc_object.c. The question is, which should we fix, the format or the
> >> autosummary?
> >
> > The format
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.6.0. This release is the
>> result of 9 months of work, and includes many new features, performance
>> improvements
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Bruce Southey wrote:
> Hi,
> I think tickets 1323, 1324 and 1325 have a common source of error and,
> thus, are duplicates.
> http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1323
> http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1324
> http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1325
>
On Sun, 15 May 2011 10:32:17 +0200, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> OK, the format for that part of the signature is in line 4910 in
>> ufunc_object.c. The question is, which should we fix, the format or the
>> autosummary?
>
> The format please. That [, out] never made sense to me.
The problem here is tha
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 May 2011 09:45:12 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> [clip]
>> > These are generated by the .. autosummary:: command, so the error
>> > probably lies there.
>>
>>