A Friday 04 July 2008, Francesc Alted escrigué:
> A Thursday 03 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Charles R Harris
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hmm,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Francesc Alted
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
A Thursday 03 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > Hmm,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Francesc Alted
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Ok. But str also represents differently the 0j:
> >>
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hmm,
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ok. But str also represents differently the 0j:
>>
>> In [24]: str(numpy.complex64(0))
>> Out[24]: '(0.0+0.0j)'
>>
>> In [
Hmm,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok. But str also represents differently the 0j:
>
> In [24]: str(numpy.complex64(0))
> Out[24]: '(0.0+0.0j)'
>
> In [25]: str(numpy.complex(0))
> Out[25]: '0j'
>
> In addition, I find the new representation not
A Thursday 03 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > A Thursday 03 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Francesc Alted
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > A Wednesday
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A Thursday 03 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > A Wednesday 02 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at
A Thursday 03 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > A Wednesday 02 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Charles R Harris
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On We
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A Wednesday 02 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Charles R Harris
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Francesc Alted
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Wednesday 02 July 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Francesc Alted
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've seen that NumPy has changed the representation o
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've seen that NumPy has changed the representation of complex numbers
>> starting with NumPy 1.1. Before, it was:
>>
>> >>>
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've seen that NumPy has changed the representation of complex numbers
> starting with NumPy 1.1. Before, it was:
>
> >>> numpy.__version__
> '1.0.3'
> >>> repr(numpy.complex(0))# The Python type
> '0j'
> >>>
Hi,
I've seen that NumPy has changed the representation of complex numbers
starting with NumPy 1.1. Before, it was:
>>> numpy.__version__
'1.0.3'
>>> repr(numpy.complex(0))# The Python type
'0j'
>>> repr(numpy.complex128(0)) # The NumPy type
'0j'
Now, it is:
>>> numpy.__version__
'1.2.0.
12 matches
Mail list logo