[Numpy-discussion] numpy sum each month and then numpy mean of all months

2014-03-23 Thread questions anon
Hello all, I have netcdf files that contain hourly rainfall data. Each netcdf file includes one months worth of hours and I have 10 years worth of data. I would like to calculate the sum of each month and then the mean of these summed months across all of the years. I have no problem firstly calc

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Dates and times and Datetime64 (again)

2014-03-23 Thread Chris Barker
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Chris Barker > wrote: > > * I think there are more or less three options: > >1) a) don't have any timezone handling at all -- all datetime64s are > UTC. Always > > b) don't have any timezone

[Numpy-discussion] Implementing elementary matrices

2014-03-23 Thread Matt Pagan
Greetings! I made a patch for NumPy that adds a function for easily creating elementary matrices. Sorry for not knowing the process for submitting patches. Is this function something the NumPy community could see adding to the codebase? Are there ways I can improve on this? diff --git a/numpy/lib

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.9.0 release runup

2014-03-23 Thread Ralf Gommers
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On So, 2014-03-23 at 07:26 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Ralf Gommers > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Charles R Harris > > wrote: > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.9.0 release runup

2014-03-23 Thread Sebastian Berg
On So, 2014-03-23 at 07:26 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > Hi All, > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.9.0 release runup

2014-03-23 Thread Charles R Harris
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> It is time to start looking forward to the 1.9.0 release. Currently there >> are some 76 open PRs and they keep rolling in, which

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.8.1 release

2014-03-23 Thread Charles R Harris
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Christoph Gohlke wrote: > >> On 3/22/2014 7:28 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: >> > Hi All, >> > >> > It is time for the 1.8.1 release to go forward. I'm on the fence as to >> > whether to do an rc2 or just

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.9.0 release runup

2014-03-23 Thread Ralf Gommers
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > It is time to start looking forward to the 1.9.0 release. Currently there > are some 76 open PRs and they keep rolling in, which is good, > To make the PR list a bit more manageable, I would suggest to start closing the ones

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.8.1 release

2014-03-23 Thread Ralf Gommers
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Christoph Gohlke wrote: > On 3/22/2014 7:28 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > It is time for the 1.8.1 release to go forward. I'm on the fence as to > > whether to do an rc2 or just release and do a 1.8.2 if needed. The > > problems noted with the 1.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Resolving the associativity/precedence debate for @

2014-03-23 Thread Christophe Bal
The left associativity should be the less disturbing choice. Using parenthesis to force right associativity will be not too painful. How many matrices in long product are involved concretely in Numpy projects ? On the other hand, Nathaniel proposed a new way to evaluate associative operators, and

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Resolving the associativity/precedence debate for @

2014-03-23 Thread Ralf Gommers
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Robert Kern > wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see > >> [1] for background). But we