[Numpy-discussion] How a transition to C++ could work

The suggestion of transitioning the NumPy core code from C to C++ has sparked a vigorous debate, and I thought I'd start a new thread to give my perspective on some of the issues raised, and describe how such a transition could occur. First, I'd like to reiterate the gcc rationale for their choice

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: >> >> Sure.  This list actually deserves a long writeup about that.   First, >> there wasn't a "Cython-refactor" of NumPy.   There was a Cython-refactor of >> SciPy.   I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Travis Oliphant >> wrote: >> >> > We will need to see examples of what Mark is talking about and clarify >> > some >> > of the com

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > The decision will not be made until NumPy 2.0 work is farther along. > The most likely outcome is that Mark will develop something quite nice in > C++ which he is already toying with, and we will either choose to use it in > NumPy to buil

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Travis Oliphant > > > wrote: > > > We will need to see examples of what Mark is talking about and clarify > some > > of the compiler issues. Certainly there is some risk that once code is > > written

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > We will need to see examples of what Mark is talking about and clarify some > of the compiler issues.   Certainly there is some risk that once code is > written that it will be tempting to just use it.   Other approaches are > certain

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

>> >> The decision will not be made until NumPy 2.0 work is farther along. The >> most likely outcome is that Mark will develop something quite nice in C++ >> which he is already toying with, and we will either choose to use it in >> NumPy to build 2.0 on --- or not. I'm interested in spo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On 2012-02-18, at 2:47 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Of course it might be that so-far undiscovered C++ developers are > drawn to a C++ rewrite of Numpy. But it that really likely? If we can trick them into thinking the GIL doesn't exist, then maybe... David ___

[Numpy-discussion] Forbidden charcter in the "names" argument of genfromtxt?

Hey everyone, I have timeseries data in which the column label is simply a filename from which the original data was taken. Here's some sample data: name1.txt name2.txt name3.txt 32 34953 32 03402 I've noticed that the standard genfromtxt() me

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> >> On Feb 18, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Travis Oliphant >>> wrote: The C/C++ discussion is just gettin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >>> The C/C++ discussion is just getting started.  Everyone should keep in mind >>> that this is not something

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Den 19.02.2012 01:12, skrev Nathaniel Smith: > > I don't oppose it, but I admit I'm not really clear on what the > supposed advantages would be. Everyone seems to agree that >-- Only a carefully-chosen subset of C++ features should be used >-- But this subset would be pretty useful > I wond

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > > I'm reading very carefully any arguments against using C++ because I've > actually pushed back on Mark pretty hard as we've discussed these things > over the past months. I a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Sturla Molden wrote: > >>  > In an ideal world, we would have a better language than C++ that can >> be spit out as > C for portability. >> >> What about a statically typed Python? (That is, not Cython.)

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I'm reading very carefully any arguments against using C++ because I've > actually pushed back on Mark pretty hard as we've discussed these things over > the past months.  I am nervous about corner use-cases that will be unpleasant > fo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Den 18.02.2012 23:54, skrev Travis Oliphant: > Another factor. the decision to make an extra layer of indirection makes > small arrays that much slower. I agree with Mark that in a core library we > need to go the other way with small arrays being completely allocated in the > data-structure

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:24 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > Well, we already have code obfuscation (DOUBLE_your_pleasure, > > FLOAT_your_boat), so we might as well let the compiler handle it. > > Yes, those are not great, but on

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Den 19.02.2012 00:33, skrev Sturla Molden: > Or just write everything in Cython, even the core? That is, use memory view syntax and fused types for generics, and hope it is stable before we are done ;-) Sturla ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-D

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Den 19.02.2012 00:09, skrev David Cournapeau: > There are better languages than C++ that has most of the technical > benefits stated in this discussion (rust and D being the most > "obvious" ones), What about Java? (compile with GJC for CPython) Or just write everything in Cython, even the core

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Den 19.02.2012 00:09, skrev David Cournapeau: > reasons: knowledge, availability on "esoteric" platforms, etc… A new > language is completely ridiculous. Yes, that is why I argued against Cython as well. Personally I prefer C++ to C, but only if it is written in a readable way. And if the purpos

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Sturla Molden wrote: >  > In an ideal world, we would have a better language than C++ that can > be spit out as > C for portability. > > What about a statically typed Python? (That is, not Cython.) We just > need to make the compiler :-) There are better languag

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:29, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Robert Kern wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:06, Matthew Brett >>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Feb 18, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> The C/C++ discussion is just getting started. Everyone should keep in mind >> that this is not something that is going to happening quickly. This will >> be a point of discu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:29, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Robert Kern wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:06, Matthew Brett wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert Kern wrote: Your misunderstanding of what was being discussed. T

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Den 18.02.2012 23:24, skrev David Cournapeau: > Iterators as we have it in NumPy is something that is clearly limited > by C. Computers tend to have more than one CPU now. Iterators are inherently bad, whether they are written in C or C++. NumPy core should be written with objects that are scal

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:06, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert Kern wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 21:51, Matthew Brett >>> wrote: On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Charles R Harris >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > Well, we already have code obfuscation (DOUBLE_your_pleasure, > FLOAT_your_boat), so we might as well let the compiler handle it. Yes, those are not great, but on the other hand, it is not that a fundamental issue IMO. Iterators as we

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 22:06, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert Kern wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 21:51, Matthew Brett wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Charles R Harris >>> wrote: On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, David Cournap

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Den 18.02.2012 22:25, skrev Benjamin Root: > 2.) My personal preference is an incremental refactor over to C++ > using STL, however, I have to be realistic. First, the exception > issue is problematic (unsolvable? I don't know). Second, one of > Numpy/Scipy's greatest strengths is the relative

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On 02/18/2012 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > Hi. > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire > mailto:cjord...@uw.edu>> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:3

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 21:51, Matthew Brett wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, David Cournapeau >>> wrote: On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Charl

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 21:51, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, David Cournapeau >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Charles R Harris >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > The C/C++ discussion is just getting started.  Everyone should keep in mind > that this is not something that is going to happening quickly.   This will > be a point of discussion throughout the year.    I'm not a huge supporter of > C

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

> >* NumPy 1.8 to come out in July which will have as many ABI-compatible > feature enhancements as we can add while improving test coverage and code > cleanup. I will post to this list more details of what we plan to address > with it later.Included for possible inclusion are: >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, David Cournapeau > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Charles R Harris > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Feb 18

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, David Cournapeau > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Sa

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Matthew Brett < >> matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> > wrote

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Matthew Brett >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi. >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Matthew Brett >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> H

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Matthew Brett > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi. > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire > >> wrote: >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi. > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire > >> wrote: > >>> On

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Sturla Molden wrote: > > > Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 05:56 skrev Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com>: > > >> > But won't a C++ wrapper catch that? > > > A try-catch block with MSVC will register an SEH with the operating > system. GCC (g++) implements exc

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The end of numpy as we know it ?

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 02/18/2012 08:52 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Sturla Molden wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>     Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 17:12 skrev Ala

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Hi. On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Sturla Molden wrote: Den 18.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The end of numpy as we know it ?

Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 02/18/2012 08:52 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Sturla Molden wrote: >> >> >> >>     Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 17:12 skrev Alan G Isaac >     >: >> >>      > >>      > >>      > How does "stream-l

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

18.02.2012 17:24, Sturla Molden kirjoitti: [clip] > If we want something more readable than C or C++, that looks like Python, > Cython is not the only option. Another is RPython, which is the subset [clip] Except that AFAIK integrating it with CPython efficiently or providing C APIs with it is not

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change the mask state of one element in a masked array

On 02/18/2012 05:52 AM, Chao YUE wrote: > Dear all, > > I built a new empty masked array: > > In [91]: a=np.ma.empty((2,5)) Of course this only makes sense if you are going to immediately populate the array. > > In [92]: a > Out[92]: > masked_array(data = > [[ 1.20569155e-312 3.34730819e-31

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The end of numpy as we know it ?

On 02/18/2012 08:52 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Sturla Molden wrote: > > > > Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 17:12 skrev Alan G Isaac >: > > > > > > > How does "stream-lined" code written for maintainability > > (i.e., with helpful comments and

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The end of numpy as we know it ?

On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Sturla Molden wrote: > > > Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 17:12 skrev Alan G Isaac > > >: > > > > > > > How does "stream-lined" code written for maintainability > > (i.e., with helpful comments and tests) become *less* > > accessible to amateurs?? > > > I think you missed

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Yes. Basically, one NEP per feature. Some of them might be merged. The NEP will be an outline and overview and then fleshed out as the code is developed in a branch. Some of the NEPs will be more detailed than others a first of course. I just wanted to provide a preview about the kind of t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The end of numpy as we know it ?

Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 17:12 skrev Alan G Isaac : > > > How does "stream-lined" code written for maintainability > (i.e., with helpful comments and tests) become *less* > accessible to amateurs?? I think you missed the irony. Sturla ___ NumPy-Disc

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

> > Albeit Cython has a special syntax for NumPy arrays, we are talking about > implementation of NumPy, not using it. I would not consider Cython for this > before e.g. memoryviews have been stable for a long period. The subset of > Cython we could safely use is not better than plain C. > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change the mask state of one element in a masked array

There may be a better way to do it, but you can first do: a.mask = np.zeros_like(a) then afterwards e.g. a.mask[0, 0] = True will work. -=- Olivier Le 18 février 2012 10:52, Chao YUE a écrit : > Dear all, > > I built a new empty masked array: > > In [91]: a=np.ma.empty((2,5)) > > In [92]: a > O

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The end of numpy as we know it ?

On 2/18/2012 10:20 AM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > we need to streamline the code so the bunch of amateurs doesn't > understand what's going on and cannot effectively threaten a fork > anymore. I don't mean to take today's peculiar post too seriously, and your opening line undermines that. But

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

> > I just meant what Sturla said, nothing more: > > "Cython is still 0.16, it is still unfinished. We cannot base NumPy on > an unfinished compiler." > Albeit Cython has a special syntax for NumPy arrays, we are talking about implementation of NumPy, not using it. I would not consider Cython

[Numpy-discussion] change the mask state of one element in a masked array

Dear all, I built a new empty masked array: In [91]: a=np.ma.empty((2,5)) In [92]: a Out[92]: masked_array(data = [[ 1.20569155e-312 3.34730819e-316 1.13580079e-316 1.11459945e-316 9.69610549e-317] [ 6.94900258e-310 8.48292532e-317 6.94900258e-310 9.76397825e-317 6.949002

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 14:38 skrev David Cournapeau : > I took a superficial look at zeromq 2.x sources: it looks like they don't use > much of the stl (beyond vector and some trivial usages of algorithm). I > wonder if this is linked ? > > FWIW, I would be fine with using such a subset in num

[Numpy-discussion] The end of numpy as we know it ?

(on a ambiguous day, pessimistic or optimistic?) Numpy is a monster written by a bunch of amateurs (engineers and scientists), with a glacial pace of development. If we want to make any progress to the world dominance of python in science, we need to go professionally about it. First we need to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

Le 18 févr. 2012 11:25, "Robert Kern" a écrit : > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 04:54, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > I found this , which references 0mq (used by ipython) as an example of a C++ > > library with a C interface. It seems enums can have different sizes in > > C/C++, so that is somethin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 04:54, Charles R Harris wrote: > I found this , which references 0mq (used by ipython) as an example of a C++ > library with a C interface. It seems enums can have different sizes in > C/C++, so that is something to watch. One of the ways they manage to do this is by scru

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Mark Wiebe and I have been discussing off and on (as well as talking with > Charles) a good way forward to balance two competing desires: > >* addition of new features that are needed in NumPy >* improving the code-base gen

Re: [Numpy-discussion] test errors on deprecation/runtime warnings

2012/2/17 Stéfan van der Walt > Hi Ralf > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > Last week we merged https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/201, which > causes > > DeprecationWarning's and RuntimeWarning's to be converted to errors if > they > > occur when running the test su

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire > wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Sturla Molden wrote: >>> >>> >>> Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 05:01 skrev Jason Grout : >>> On 2/17/12 9:54 PM, Sturla Molden wr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:55 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > Le 18 févr. 2012 06:18, "Christopher Jordan-Squire" a > écrit : > > >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Sturla Molden wrote: >> > >> > >> > Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 05:01 skrev Jason Grout >> > : >> > >> >> On 2/17/12 9:54 PM, Sturla

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposed Roadmap Overview

On 02/17/2012 09:55 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > I may not have explained it very well: my whole point is that we don't > recruite people, where I understand recruit as hiring full time, > profesional programmers.We need more people who can casually spend a few > hours - typically grad students, s