On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> > Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:40:00 +0200, Sturla Molden wrote:
>
> > Want to submit a patch? ;)
>
> I had this in a Matlab MEX file I used for my dissertation. The ziggurat
> is not hard to program, even for general PDFs. We could even fill in the
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> There might be a problem with the endian commits we should look into. From
> Scott Sinclair on scipy-dev,
I am looking into it - I don't understand how it can cause the issue,
but that should be quick to fix,
David
__
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:59 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
>
> > I had this in a Matlab MEX file I used for my dissertation. The ziggurat
> > is not hard to program, even for general PDFs. We could even fill in the
> > ziggurat table using num
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> I had this in a Matlab MEX file I used for my dissertation. The ziggurat
> is not hard to program, even for general PDFs. We could even fill in the
> ziggurat table using numerical integration, and code one for general PDFs
> (NumPy overhead
> Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:40:00 +0200, Sturla Molden wrote:
> Want to submit a patch? ;)
I had this in a Matlab MEX file I used for my dissertation. The ziggurat
is not hard to program, even for general PDFs. We could even fill in the
ziggurat table using numerical integration, and code one for gener
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:40:00 +0200, Sturla Molden wrote:
>> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> Is the current algorithm in the trunk the ziggurat one, or the previous
>> one? IIRC, the problem was that the ziggurat broke reproducibility of
>> random numbers with a given seed.
>
>
> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> Is the current algorithm in the trunk the ziggurat one, or the previous
> one? IIRC, the problem was that the ziggurat broke reproducibility of
> random numbers with a given seed.
Ziggurat (in Enthought) did not break reproducibility but ba
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 16:21, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> [clip]
>> If you have urgent tickets, please let's hear those as well. My small
>> laundry list is pasted below.
>
> Was something done to the Gaussian random generator?
>
> Is the current
Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
[clip]
> If you have urgent tickets, please let's hear those as well. My small
> laundry list is pasted below.
Was something done to the Gaussian random generator?
Is the current algorithm in the trunk the ziggurat one, or the previous
one? II
Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>> These are a couple relevant tickets;
>>
>> http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/909
>> http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/883
>
> The relevant thing for 1.5.x would probably be to check that fromfile/
> fromstring handle malformed data in a well-specified way, and be
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:50:51 -0700, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:37:56 -0600, Jed Ludlow wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
One low-hanging fruit to fix could be np.fromfile raising MemoryError
when it encounters EO
Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:37:56 -0600, Jed Ludlow wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>>> One low-hanging fruit to fix could be np.fromfile raising MemoryError
>>> when it encounters EOF, and other bugs in that part of the code.
>> The EOF bug in np.f
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>>
>>> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>> > For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent cha
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:37:56 -0600, Jed Ludlow wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>>
>> One low-hanging fruit to fix could be np.fromfile raising MemoryError
>> when it encounters EOF, and other bugs in that part of the code.
>
> The EOF bug in np.fromfile may already be
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>
> One low-hanging fruit to fix could be np.fromfile raising MemoryError
> when it encounters EOF, and other bugs in that part of the code.
The EOF bug in np.fromfile may already be fixed:
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1152
unless
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>
>> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> > For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need
>> > to go in. If you do, please reply with the wh
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Southey wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> > Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> >> For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need
> >> to go in. If you do, please reply with the what
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> > For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need
> > to go in. If you do, please reply with the what and why. If nothing big
> > has to go in, I propose the foll
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need
>> to go in. If you do, please reply with the what and why. If nothing big
>> has to go in, I propose the followin
Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:58:11 +0800, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need
> to go in. If you do, please reply with the what and why. If nothing big
> has to go in, I propose the following release schedule:
>
> Aug 1 : beta 1
> Aug 15: rc 1
> Aug
>> Basically the 'wrap' mode for handling out-of-bounds indexing in
>> ndimage functions is completely broken. The test suite tests for the
>> wrong behavior.
>>
>
> Ah, we are talking about numpy 1.5, not scipy. You should raise this issue
> over on the scipy-dev list.
My bad. Sorry for the noi
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Kurt Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need to
> go
> > in. If you do, please reply with the what and why. If nothing big has to
> go
> > in
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need to go
> in. If you do, please reply with the what and why. If nothing big has to go
> in, I propose the following release schedule:
>
> Aug 1 : beta 1
> Aug 15
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need to go
> in. If you do, please reply with the what and why. If nothing big has to go
> in, I propose the following release schedule:
>
> Aug 1 : beta 1
> Aug 15
Hi all,
For numpy 1.5.0 no one has yet said they have urgent changes that need to go
in. If you do, please reply with the what and why. If nothing big has to go
in, I propose the following release schedule:
Aug 1 : beta 1
Aug 15: rc 1
Aug 22: rc 2
Aug 29: release
Please note that the branch has
25 matches
Mail list logo
