On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote:
>
> This would be an appropriate time I suppose to say I am attempting to
> build numpy, scipy and matplotlib on 10.9. NDA of course prohibits me
> (unfortunately) from really discussing things but safe to say I would
> support "moving on". Th
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:17 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
>> time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
>> provide binaries f
Thanks Warren,
ok,
I will pay more atention in the next time and address correctly.
abs,
Koblitz
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KACVINSKY Tom wrote:
> llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up
> tomorrow when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use
> xcrun.
>
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2
>
> To me, `unique_rows` sounds perfect. To go along columns: unique_rows(A.T)
>
Stéfan
Personally, I like this idea as well. A separate `unique_rows` function,
which potentially takes an `axis` argument. (Alternately,
`unique_sequences` wouldn't imply a particular axis.)
Of course, the obvi
gt;> So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal
>> binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries.
>> We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a
>> hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow a
y works, that would be helpful.
>
> Any concerns, objections?
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-dis
llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up tomorrow
when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use xcrun.
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau"
mailto:courn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom
mailto:tom
Ralf,
Thanks for doing all this!
> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
> time-consuming.
It sure would be nice to clean that up.
For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
> provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this
> any
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom wrote:
> You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do.
>
With which compiler ?
David
>
> Tom
>
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Build
You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do.
Tom
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau"
mailto:courn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
mailto:ralf.gomm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
> time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
> provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this
> anymore. It doe
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this
anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just
that
On 20 Aug 2013 12:53, wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:47 AM, wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >> On 20 Aug 2013 12:09, wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith
wrote:
> >>> > On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
> >>>
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:47 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On 20 Aug 2013 12:09, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> > On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ...
>>> >>>
>>>
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2013 12:09, wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> > On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> However, my first interpretation of an axis
On 20 Aug 2013 12:09, wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> However, my first interpretation of an axis argument in unique would
> >>> be that it treats each column (or what
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> However, my first interpretation of an axis argument in unique would
>>> be that it treats each column (or whatever along axis) separately.
>>> Analogously to max, a
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Skipper Seabold wrote:
>
> +1 on scipy.finance / scipy.financial (or even numpy.finance /
> numpy.financial)
Are there no external libraries that deal with these things? If they
exist, we can deprecate with two releases pointing to that external
source.
Factorin
On 20 Aug 2013 01:39, "Joe Kington" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ...
>>
>>
>> However, my first interpretation of an axis argument in unique would
>> be that it treats each column (or whatever along axis) separately.
>> Analogously to max, argmax and similar.
>
>
> Good point!
>
> That's certainly a potential
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Joe Kington wrote:
> That's certainly a potential source of confusion. However, I can't seem to
> come up with a better name for the kwarg. Matlab's "unique" function has a
> "rows" option, which is probably a more intuitive name, but doesn't imply
> the expansion
21 matches
Mail list logo