Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > One of the things that we should start doing for numpy is distribute > releases as wheels. On OS X at least this is quite simple, so I propose to > just experiment with it. > OK -- maybe on the wrong list, but an itch of mine is OSX binaries

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:14 PM, wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg > wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky < > ndar..

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Not sure how much time it's worth spending on coming up with new > definitions for boolean subtraction, since even if we deprecate the > current behavior now we won't be able to implement any of them for a > year+, and then we'll end up havi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

Not sure how much time it's worth spending on coming up with new definitions for boolean subtraction, since even if we deprecate the current behavior now we won't be able to implement any of them for a year+, and then we'll end up having to go through these debates again then anyway. -n On Fri, D

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:14 PM, wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg > wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky >>> > wrote

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Oscar Benjamin > wrote: > >> On 6 December 2013 20:09, Chris Barker wrote: >> >> 2. in the absence of statistics, can we do an experiment by putting one >> >> wheel up on PyPi which contains SSE3 ins

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On 12/6/2013 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > Both of these are currently not defined, they will just cause upcast to > int8. What does currently mean? `**` works fine for boolean arrays in 1.7.1. (It's useless, but it works.) Alan Isaac ___ NumPy-Dis

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On 12/6/2013 3:30 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > 6 `**` follows from 1. Yes, but what really matters is that linalg.matrix_power give the correct (boolean) result. Alan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Christoph Gohlke wrote: > On 12/6/2013 12:40 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Christoph Gohlke > > wrote: > > > > Has anyone succeeded building wheels for numpy, scipy, and > matplotlib? > > > > I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On 12/6/2013 12:40 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Christoph Gohlke > wrote: > > On 12/6/2013 10:06 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There are a few discussions on packaging for the scientific Python stack >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:30 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > >>> > >>> On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Christoph Gohlke wrote: > On 12/6/2013 10:06 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There are a few discussions on packaging for the scientific Python stack > > ongoing, on the NumFOCUS and distutils lists: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/numfocus/

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On 12/6/2013 10:06 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > Hi all, > > There are a few discussions on packaging for the scientific Python stack > ongoing, on the NumFOCUS and distutils lists: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/numfocus/mVNakFqfpZg >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote: > On 6 December 2013 20:09, Chris Barker wrote: > >> 2. in the absence of statistics, can we do an experiment by putting one > >> wheel up on PyPi which contains SSE3 instructions, for python 3.3 I > propose, > >> and seeing for how many (if a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >>> >>> On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >>> > unary versus binary minus >>> >>> Oh right; I cons

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On 6 December 2013 20:09, Chris Barker wrote: >> 2. in the absence of statistics, can we do an experiment by putting one >> wheel up on PyPi which contains SSE3 instructions, for python 3.3 I propose, >> and seeing for how many (if any) users this goes wrong? > > > sounds good -- it looks like SSE

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > One of the things that we should start doing for numpy is distribute > releases as wheels. On OS X at least this is quite simple, so I propose to > just experiment with it. I can create some to try out and put them on a > separate folder on S

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >> >> On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >> > unary versus binary minus >> >> Oh right; I consider binary `-` broken for >> Boolean arrays. (Sorry Alexander; I d

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > unary versus binary minus > > Oh right; I consider binary `-` broken for > Boolean arrays. (Sorry Alexander; I did not > see your entire issue.) > > > > I'd rather write ~ than unary - if t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >> unary versus binary minus > > Oh right; I consider binary `-` broken for > Boolean arrays. (Sorry Alexander; I did not > see your entire issue.) > > >> I'd rather write ~ than unary - if that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

On 06.12.2013 19:06, Ralf Gommers wrote: > Hi all, > > There are a few discussions on packaging for the scientific Python stack > ongoing, on the NumFOCUS and distutils lists: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/numfocus/mVNakFqfpZg > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/numfocus/HUcwXTM_

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On 12/6/2013 1:35 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > unary versus binary minus Oh right; I consider binary `-` broken for Boolean arrays. (Sorry Alexander; I did not see your entire issue.) > I'd rather write ~ than unary - if that's what it is. I agree. So I have no objection to elimination of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 12/6/2013 12:23 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: >> What is the rationale for this: >> >> >>> -array(True) + array(True) >> True > > > The minus is complementation. > So you are just writing > False or True unary versus binary minus

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

>> On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: >>> did you find minus to be as useful? > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan G Isaac >> It is also a correct usage. On 12/6/2013 12:23 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > Can you provide a reference? For use of the minus sign, I don't h

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On 12/6/2013 12:23 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > What is the rationale for this: > > >>> -array(True) + array(True) > True The minus is complementation. So you are just writing False or True Alan Isaac ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list Nu

[Numpy-discussion] distributing wheels & SSE/superpack options

Hi all, There are a few discussions on packaging for the scientific Python stack ongoing, on the NumFOCUS and distutils lists: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/numfocus/mVNakFqfpZg https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/numfocus/HUcwXTM_jNY http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.distuti

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > >> On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: >> > did you find minus to be as useful? >> >> >> It is also a correct usage. >> > > Can you provide a reference? > > >> >> I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > did you find minus to be as useful? > > > It is also a correct usage. > > Can you provide a reference? > I think a good approach to this is to first realize that > there were good reas

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: >> did you find minus to be as useful? > > > It is also a correct usage. > > I think a good approach to this is to first realize that > there were good reasons for the current behavior. What'

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On 12/5/2013 11:14 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > did you find minus to be as useful? It is also a correct usage. I think a good approach to this is to first realize that there were good reasons for the current behavior. Alan Isaac ___ NumPy-Discu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM, wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Sebastian Berg > wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:02 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Belopolsky >>> wrote: >>> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg >>> > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Alan G Isaac > wrote: >> For + and * (and thus `dot`), this will "fix" something that is not broken. >> It is in fact in conformance with a large literature on boolean arrays >> and boolean matrices. On 12/6/2013 3:24 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Interesting poin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:02 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Belopolsky >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg >> > wrote: >> >> there was a discussion that for numpy b

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:02 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg > > wrote: > >> there was a discussion that for numpy booleans math operators +,-,* (and > >> the unary -), while define

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate boolean math operators?

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:33 PM, wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Berg > wrote: >> Hey, >> >> there was a discussion that for numpy booleans math operators +,-,* (and >> the unary -), while defined, are not very helpful. I have set up a quick >> PR with start (needs some fixes i