On Tue Jan 13 04:23:22 2015 GMT+0100, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> > That is to say, in this case C long has the same precision as C long
> long. That varies depending on the platform, which is one reason the
> precision nomenclatur
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> That is to say, in this case C long has the same precision as C long
long. That varies depending on the platform, which is one reason the
precision nomenclature came in. It can be confusing, and I've often
fantasized getting rid of the l
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Maniteja Nandana <
maniteja.modesty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
> wrote:
>
>> Consider this (on a 64-bit platform):
>>
>> >>> numpy.dtype('q') == numpy.dtype('l')
>> True
>>
>>
> >>> numpy.dtype('q').char
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> Consider this (on a 64-bit platform):
>
> >>> numpy.dtype('q') == numpy.dtype('l')
> True
>
>
>>> numpy.dtype('q').char == numpy.dtype('l').char
> False
>
> Is that intended? Shouldn't dtype constructor "normalize" 'l' to 'q' (
Consider this (on a 64-bit platform):
>>> numpy.dtype('q') == numpy.dtype('l')
True
but
>>> numpy.dtype('q').char == numpy.dtype('l').char
False
Is that intended? Shouldn't dtype constructor "normalize" 'l' to 'q' (or
'i')?
___
NumPy-Discussion maili
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:50 AM, cjw wrote:
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Wot, no AMD64?
>
>
> Colin, this is well known from previous scipy and numpy releases. It's due
> to not having a freely available 64-bit compiler chain available at the
>
