On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> I agree that where `@` and `dot` differ in behavior, this should be
> clearly documented.
> I would hope that the behavior of `dot` would not change.
Even if np.dot never changes (and indeed, perhaps it should not), issuing
these warnings s
On 5/11/2015 3:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Not sure what you mean. It's true that PEP 465 doesn't say anything about
> np.dot, because it's out of scope. The argument here, though, is not "PEP
> 465 says we have to do this". It's that it's confusing to have two different
> subtly different se
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that we go ahead and add deprecation warnings to
> the following operations. This doesn't commit us to changing anything
> on any particular time scale, but it gives us more options later.
>
These both get a strong +1 f
On May 11, 2015 12:44 PM, "Alan G Isaac" wrote:
>
> On 5/9/2015 4:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > dot(A, B) where one of the argument is a scalar: currently, this
> > does scalar multiplication. There is no logically consistent
> > motivation for this, it violates TOOWTDI, and again it is incons
On 5/9/2015 4:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> dot(A, B) where one of the argument is a scalar: currently, this
> does scalar multiplication. There is no logically consistent
> motivation for this, it violates TOOWTDI, and again it is inconsistent
> with the PEP semantics for @ (which are that this
Hello,
We are proud to announce v0.16.1 of pandas, a minor release from 0.16.0.
This release includes a small number of API changes, several new features,
enhancements, and performance improvements along with a large number of bug
fixes.
This was a release of 7 weeks with 222 commits by 57 autho
