On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris
>> >>
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smit
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So this petered off...any objections to np.f
>> and I don't see the problem with ``tile_like``.
On 6/29/2013 6:15 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> It makes no sense except in the scalar case.
I would think it makes sense in every case that
can be normally broadcast to the shape of the
paradigm array.
Anyway, I drop the suggestion.
Cheers,
Alan
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote:
any objections to np.full?
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>>
>>> Still curious:
>>> why isn't ``tile`` the right name?
>>> (It already exists.)
>
>
>>> >>
>> On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote:
>>> any objections to np.full?
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> Still curious:
>> why isn't ``tile`` the right name?
>> (It already exists.)
>> >>> import numpy as np
>> >>> np.tile(3.0, (2,3))
>> array([[ 3., 3., 3.],
>>
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>
> On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote:
> > any objections to np.full?
>
> Still curious:
> why isn't ``tile`` the right name?
> (It already exists.)
>
> >>> import numpy as np
> >>> np.tile(3.0, (2,3))
> array([[ 3., 3., 3.],
> [
On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote:
> any objections to np.full?
Still curious:
why isn't ``tile`` the right name?
(It already exists.)
>>> import numpy as np
>>> np.tile(3.0, (2,3))
array([[ 3., 3., 3.],
[ 3., 3., 3.]])
If someone explained this, sorry to
have missed it.
Alan
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> So this petered off...any objections to np.full?
>
No objection.
> > How about `np.inited` ? `full` doesn't sou
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> So this petered off...any objections to np.full?
>
>
> How about `np.inited` ? `full` doesn't sound quite right to me. Although I
> expect once it comes into use everyone
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> So this petered off...any objections to np.full?
>
How about `np.inited` ? `full` doesn't sound quite right to me. Although I
expect once it comes into use everyone will get used to it.
Chuck
__
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> So this petered off...any objections to np.full?
>
> full and filledwith and filled_with all seem OK to me.
same here, filled_with_like might have too many underlines.
>
>
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> So this petered off...any objections to np.full?
full and filledwith and filled_with all seem OK to me.
On a meta note - anything we can do to stop threads petering off? It
seems to happen rather often,
Cheers,
Matthew
__
So this petered off...any objections to np.full?
On 29 Jun 2013 05:03, wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle
> > something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and
> > 'np.fill
14 matches
Mail list logo
