Heh, thanks :)
It's free interpretation made from quick idea then immediately shared.
Original logo can be made exact I guess with interlaced planes and
shallower bars or similar...
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote:
> This is awesome!
>
__
This is awesome!
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:27 AM, klo uo wrote:
> I was reading mayavi documentation and one of the examples
> (tvtk.ImageData) resembled Numpy logo grid.
> I added barchart and tweaked a bit colormap and thought to post it for fun:
>
>
>
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Eventually we will need to break the ABI. We might as well wait until 2.0
> at this point.
Ah, got it; thanks for the clarification, I just didn't understand the original.
Cheers,
f
___
Num
On Jun 26, 2012, at 12:09 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> I agree a decision needs to be made. I think we will need to break the
>> ABI.At this point, I don't know of any pressing features that would
>> require it short of NumPy 2.0.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I agree a decision needs to be made. I think we will need to break the ABI.
> At this point, I don't know of any pressing features that would require it
> short of NumPy 2.0.
Sorry, I don't quite know how to parse the above, do you
>> In the present climate, I'm going to have to provide additional context to a
>> comment like this. This is not an accurate enough characterization of
>> events. I was trying to get date-time changes in, for sure. I generally
>> like feature additions to NumPy. (Robert Kern was also inv
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to
>>> think about the implications of ou
On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík
> wrote:
>
>>
>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to
>> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and
>> also that little changes (wi
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to
>>> think about the implications of our
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík
> wrote:
>
>>
>> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to
>> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and
>> also that little changes (wi
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
> My understanding is that Travis is simply trying to stress "We have to
> think about the implications of our changes on existing users." and
> also that little changes (with the best intentions!) that however mean
> either a breakage or co
>>
>> I just want to note that I'm not advocating for *any*
>> backwards-compatibility breakage in numpy at this point... I was just
>> providing context for a discussion that happened back in 2009, and in
>> the scipy list. I certainly feel pretty strongly at this point about
>> the importance o
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For context, consider that for many years, the word "gr
>>
>> That's a nice argument for a different convention, really it is. It's not
>> enough for changing a convention that already exists. Now, the polynomial
>> object could store coefficients in this order, but allow construction with
>> the coefficients in the standard convention order. Th
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>
>>
>> For context, consider that for many years, the word "gratuitous" has been
>> used in a non-derogatory way in the Pytho
On Jun 25, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>
>>
>> For context, consider that for many years, the word "gratuitous" has been
>> used in a non-derogatory way in the Pytho
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>
> For context, consider that for many years, the word "gratuitous" has been
> used in a non-derogatory way in the Python ecosystem to describe changes to
> semantics and syntax that
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:53 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant
>>> wrote:
You are still missing the point that there was already a choice
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:53 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>> You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
>>> made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually
On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
>> made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
>>
>> You made a change to that. It is the change
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
>> made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
>>
>> You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gr
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
> made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
>
> You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gratuitous'. The pain
> and unnecessary overhead
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was
> made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
>
> You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gratuitous'.
As someone who played a role in that
You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was made
in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gratuitous'. The pain
and unnecessary overhead of having two competing standards is the problem ---
not whethe
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Perry Greenfield wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield
> > wrote:
> >
> > It's hard to generalize that much here. There are some areas in what
> > you say is true, particul
>From the user guide:
-
> Boolean arrays must be of the same shape as the array being indexed,
> or broadcastable to the same shape. In the most straightforward case,
> the boolean array has the same shape.
Comment: So far so good, but the doc has not told me yet what
On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield
> wrote:
>
> It's hard to generalize that much here. There are some areas in what
> you say is true, particularly if whole industries rely on libraries
> that have much time involved i
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Most folks aren't going to transition from MATLAB or IDL.
> >>> Engineers tend to stick with the tools they learned in school,
> >>> they aren't interested in the tool i
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>>>
>>> Most folks aren't going to transition from MATLAB or IDL.
>>> Engineers tend to stick with the tools they learned in school,
>>> they aren't interested in the tool itself as long as they can get
>>> their job done. And getting the
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>> C was famous for bugs due to the lack of function prototypes. This was
>> fixed with C99 and the stricter typing was a great help.
>>
>>
>> Bugs are not "due to lack of function prototypes". Bugs are due to
>> mistakes that programmers
>>
>> C was famous for bugs due to the lack of function prototypes. This was fixed
>> with C99 and the stricter typing was a great help.
>
> Bugs are not "due to lack of function prototypes". Bugs are due to mistakes
> that programmers make (and I know all about mistakes programmers make).
>
I will use walkaround but I think you'd better fix the numpy bug:
from numpy import ndarray, float64, asanyarray, array
class asdf(ndarray):
__array_priority__ = 10
def __new__(self, vals1, vals2):
obj = asanyarray(vals1).view(self)
obj.vals2 = vals2
return obj
def __add__(self, other):
print('
32 matches
Mail list logo
