Re: [Numpy-discussion] Issues to fix for 1.7.0rc2.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > On 2/6/13 12:46 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > if we decide to do so > > I should mention that we don't really depend on either behavior (we > probably should have a better doctest testing for an array of None > values anyway), but we noticed

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Issues to fix for 1.7.0rc2.

On 2/6/13 12:46 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > if we decide to do so I should mention that we don't really depend on either behavior (we probably should have a better doctest testing for an array of None values anyway), but we noticed the oddity and thought we ought to mention it. So it doesn't

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Issues to fix for 1.7.0rc2.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Jason Grout > wrote: > >> On 2/4/13 12:04 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Here are the last open issues for 1.7, there are 9 of them: >> > >> > >> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues?mil

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Issues to fix for 1.7.0rc2.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > On 2/4/13 12:04 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here are the last open issues for 1.7, there are 9 of them: > > > > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues?milestone=3&sort=updated&state=open > > > > Here's something we noticed while w

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Issues to fix for 1.7.0rc2.

On 2/4/13 12:04 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > Hi, > > Here are the last open issues for 1.7, there are 9 of them: > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues?milestone=3&sort=updated&state=open > Here's something we noticed while working on getting 1.7rc1 into Sage with one of our doctests. With nump

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Dealing with the mode argument in qr.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > This post is to bring the discussion of PR > #2965to the attention of the list. > There are at least three issues in play here. > > 1) The PR adds modes 'big' and 'thin' to the current

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Will numpy 1.7.0 final be binary compatible with the rc?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Peter Cock > wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> Will the numpy 1.7.0 'final' be binary compatible with the release >> candidate(s)? i.e. Would it be safe for me to release a Windows >> installer for a package

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Any plans for windows 64-bit installer for 1.7?

Hi, On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote: > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >>> 4) Numpy-MKL requires the Intel runtime DLLs (MKL is linked statically >>> btw). I ship those with the installers and append the directory >>> containing the DLLs to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Any plans for windows 64-bit installer for 1.7?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> 4) Numpy-MKL requires the Intel runtime DLLs (MKL is linked statically >> btw). I ship those with the installers and append the directory >> containing the DLLs to os.environ['PATH'] in numpy/__init__.py. This is >> a big no-no according to n

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Any plans for windows 64-bit installer for 1.7?

Hi, On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Christoph Gohlke wrote: > On 2/5/2013 10:51 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Charles R Harris >>> wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:04 P

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Any plans for windows 64-bit installer for 1.7?

On 2/5/2013 10:51 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Robert Kern wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Matthew Bret

[Numpy-discussion] Dealing with the mode argument in qr.

Hi All, This post is to bring the discussion of PR #2965to the attention of the list. There are at least three issues in play here. 1) The PR adds modes 'big' and 'thin' to the current modes 'full', 'r', 'economic' for qr factorization. The problem is tha

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Will numpy 1.7.0 final be binary compatible with the rc?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Peter Cock wrote: > Hello all, > > Will the numpy 1.7.0 'final' be binary compatible with the release > candidate(s)? i.e. Would it be safe for me to release a Windows > installer for a package using the NumPy C API compiled against > the NumPy 1.7.0rc? > Yes, that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Any plans for windows 64-bit installer for 1.7?

Hi, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Robert Kern wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Matthew Brett >>> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Any plans for windows 64-bit installer for 1.7?

Hi, On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Jonathan T. Niehof wrote: > On 02/04/2013 06:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > >> The problem with not providing these binaries is that they are at the >> bottom of everyone's stack, so a delay in numpy holds everyone back. > > OTOH, so far it's been an *excellent*

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Any plans for windows 64-bit installer for 1.7?

On 02/04/2013 06:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > The problem with not providing these binaries is that they are at the > bottom of everyone's stack, so a delay in numpy holds everyone back. OTOH, so far it's been an *excellent* excuse for those of us further up the stack not to make a 64-bit binar

[Numpy-discussion] Will numpy 1.7.0 final be binary compatible with the rc?

Hello all, Will the numpy 1.7.0 'final' be binary compatible with the release candidate(s)? i.e. Would it be safe for me to release a Windows installer for a package using the NumPy C API compiled against the NumPy 1.7.0rc? I'm specifically interested in Python 3.3, and NumPy 1.7 will be the firs

Re: [Numpy-discussion] savez documentation flaw

On 5 February 2013 10:38, Andreas Hilboll wrote: > I noticed that on > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.savez.html > there's a "see also" to a function numpy.savez_compressed, which doesn't > seem to exist (neither on my system nor in the online documentation). Seems like

Re: [Numpy-discussion] savez documentation flaw

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Andreas Hilboll wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that on > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.savez.html > there's a "see also" to a function numpy.savez_compressed, which doesn't > seem to exist (neither on my system nor in the online documentation

[Numpy-discussion] savez documentation flaw

Hi, I noticed that on http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.savez.html there's a "see also" to a function numpy.savez_compressed, which doesn't seem to exist (neither on my system nor in the online documentation). What would be the easiest way to find out where to fix this? Fo