On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 27.09.2013 22:15, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> 3) The issue of how to make an in-place like ndarray += sparse
>> continue to work in the brave new __numpy_ufunc__ world.
>>
>> For this last issue, I think we disagree. It seems to m
27.09.2013 22:15, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
[clip]
> 3) The issue of how to make an in-place like ndarray += sparse
> continue to work in the brave new __numpy_ufunc__ world.
>
> For this last issue, I think we disagree. It seems to me that the
> right answer is that csc_matrix.__numpy_ufunc__ ne
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 27.09.2013 19:33, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> I really don't understand what arcane magic is used to make ndarray +=
>> csc_matrix work at all, but my question is, is it going to break when
>> we complete the casting transition de
27.09.2013 19:33, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
[clip]
> I really don't understand what arcane magic is used to make ndarray +=
> csc_matrix work at all, but my question is, is it going to break when
> we complete the casting transition described above? It was just
> supposed to catch things like int
On 27 September 2013 13:27, Sebastian Berg wrote:
> And most importantly, is there any behaviour thing in the index
> machinery that is bugging you, which I may have forgotten until now?
>
Well, since you asked... I'd *love* to see the fancy indexing behaviour
moved to a separate method(s).
Yes,
On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 08:45 -0700, Jaime Fernández del Río wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
>
> And most importantly, is there any behaviour thing in the
> index
> machinery that is bugging you, which I may have forgotten
>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
>
> And most importantly, is there any behaviour thing in the index
> machinery that is bugging you, which I may have forgotten until now?
>
I find this behavior of boolean indexing a little bit annoying:
>>> a = np.arange(12).reshape(3, 4)
On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 09:26 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
> Boolean indexing could use a facelift. First, consider the following
> (albeit minor) annoyance:
>
Done. Well will be deprecation warnings for the time being, though.
>
> Next, it would be nice if boolean indexing returned a view
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> Hey,
>
> since I am working on the indexing. I was wondering about a few smaller
> things:
>
> * 0-d boolean array, `np.array(0)[True]` (will work now) would
> give np.array([0]) as a copy, instead of the original array.
> I guess
Hey,
since I am working on the indexing. I was wondering about a few smaller
things:
* 0-d boolean array, `np.array(0)[True]` (will work now) would
give np.array([0]) as a copy, instead of the original array.
I guess I could add a FutureWarning or so, but I am not sure
and overall t
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Daπid wrote:
>
>
> On 26 September 2013 10:02, Daπid wrote:
>>
>> The simplest way is to do it in cartesian coordinates: take x, y, and z
independently from N(0,1). If you want to generate only one normal number
per step, consider the jacobian in the angles.
>
> A
On 26 September 2013 10:02, Daπid wrote:
> The simplest way is to do it in cartesian coordinates: take x, y, and z
> independently from N(0,1). If you want to generate only one normal number
> per step, consider the jacobian in the angles.
Actually, this is wrong, as it would allow displacemen
12 matches
Mail list logo
