On 3/16/11 9:22 AM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
>> This comes up for discussion on a fairly regular basis. I tend towards the
>> more warnings side myself, but you aren't going to get the current behavior
>> changed unless you can convince a large bunch of people that it is the right
>> thing to d
>
> This comes up for discussion on a fairly regular basis. I tend towards the
> more warnings side myself, but you aren't going to get the current behavior
> changed unless you can convince a large bunch of people that it is the right
> thing to do, which won't be easy. For one thing, a lot of
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Paul Anton Letnes <
paul.anton.let...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 16. mars 2011, at 15.49, Chris Barker wrote:
>
> > On 3/16/11 6:34 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Paul Anton Letnes
> >
> >> Yes, it is intentional. Numpy is more C th
On 16. mars 2011, at 15.57, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 03/16/2011 02:35 PM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
>> Heisann!
>
> Hei der,
>
>> On 16. mars 2011, at 14.30, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/16/2011 02:24 PM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
Hi!
This little snippet of co
On 16. mars 2011, at 15.49, Chris Barker wrote:
> On 3/16/11 6:34 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Paul Anton Letnes
>
>> Yes, it is intentional. Numpy is more C than Python in this case,
>
> I don't know that C has anything to do with it -- the *= operators were
On 03/16/2011 02:35 PM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
> Heisann!
Hei der,
> On 16. mars 2011, at 14.30, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
>> On 03/16/2011 02:24 PM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> This little snippet of code tricked me (in a more convoluted form). The *=
>>> operator does not ch
On 3/16/11 6:34 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Paul Anton Letnes
> Yes, it is intentional. Numpy is more C than Python in this case,
I don't know that C has anything to do with it -- the *= operators were
added specifically to be "in-place" operators -- otherwise
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Paul Anton Letnes <
paul.anton.let...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This little snippet of code tricked me (in a more convoluted form). The *=
> operator does not change the datatype of the left hand side array. Is this
> intentional? It did fool me and throw my resu
Heisann!
On 16. mars 2011, at 14.30, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 03/16/2011 02:24 PM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This little snippet of code tricked me (in a more convoluted form). The *=
>> operator does not change the datatype of the left hand side array. Is this
>> intention
On 03/16/2011 02:24 PM, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This little snippet of code tricked me (in a more convoluted form). The *=
> operator does not change the datatype of the left hand side array. Is this
> intentional? It did fool me and throw my results quite a bit off. I always
> assume
On 16 March 2011 09:24, Paul Anton Letnes wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This little snippet of code tricked me (in a more convoluted form). The *=
> operator does not change the datatype of the left hand side array. Is this
> intentional? It did fool me and throw my results quite a bit off. I always
> assum
Hi!
This little snippet of code tricked me (in a more convoluted form). The *=
operator does not change the datatype of the left hand side array. Is this
intentional? It did fool me and throw my results quite a bit off. I always
assumed that 'a *= b' means exactly the same as 'a = a * b' but th
12 matches
Mail list logo
