Re: [Numpy-discussion] Int casting different across platforms

Hi, On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> > Intel, gcc: >> > 4, -2147483648 >> > PPC, gcc: >> > 4, 2147483647 >> > >> > I think that's what you predict

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Int casting different across platforms

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > Intel, gcc: > > 4, -2147483648 > > PPC, gcc: > > 4, 2147483647 > > > > I think that's what you predicted. Is it strange that the same > > compiler gives different results? > > > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Int casting different across platforms

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Intel, gcc: > 4, -2147483648 > PPC, gcc: > 4, 2147483647 > > I think that's what you predicted.  Is it strange that the same > compiler gives different results? > > It would be good if the behavior was the same across platforms - the > unexpec

Re: [Numpy-discussion] in the NA discussion, what can we agree on?

05.11.2011 23:22, T J kirjoitti: [clip] > So what do people expect out of ignored values? It seems that we might > need to extend the list you put forward so that it includes these > desires. Since my primary use is with MISSING and not so much IGNORED, > I'm not in a very good position to help ex

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Int casting different across platforms

Hi, On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I noticed this: >> >> (Intel Mac): >> >> In [2]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31)) >> Out[2]: -2147483648 >> >> (PPC): >> >> In [3]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31)) >> O

Re: [Numpy-discussion] in the NA discussion, what can we agree on?

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:33 PM, T J wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Again, I really don't think you're going to be able to sell an API where > >> [2] + [IGNORED(20)] == [IGNORED(22)] > >> I mean, i

[Numpy-discussion] ANN: scipy 0.10 release candidate 1

Hi all, I am pleased to announce the availability of the first release release of SciPy 0.10.0. For this release over a 100 tickets and pull requests have been closed, and many new features have been added. Some of the highlights are: - support for Bento as a build system for scipy - generali

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Int casting different across platforms

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed this: > > (Intel Mac): > > In [2]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31)) > Out[2]: -2147483648 > > (PPC): > > In [3]: np.int32(np.float32(2**31)) > Out[3]: 2147483647 > > I assume what is happening is that the casting is handing off to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] what is the point of dx for np.gradient()?

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > For np.gradient(), one can specify a sample distance for each axis to > apply to the gradient. But, all this does is just divides the gradient by > the sample distance. I could easily do that myself with the output from > gradient. Wouldn'

Re: [Numpy-discussion] in the NA discussion, what can we agree on?

Hi, 05.11.2011 03:43, T J kirjoitti: [clip] > I thought that "PdC" satisfied (a) and (b). > Let me show you what I thought they were. Perhaps I am not being > consistent. If so, point out my mistake. Yes, propagating + destructive assigment + do-computations-on-payload should satisfy (a) and (b)

Re: [Numpy-discussion] in the NA discussion, what can we agree on?

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:33 PM, T J wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> Again, I really don't think you're going to be able to sell an API where >>  [2] + [IGNORED(20)] == [IGNORED(22)] >> I mean, it's not me you have to convince, it's Gary, Pierre, maybe >> Benjami