On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Jaime Fernández del Río <
jaime.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would the logic for such a thing be consistent? E.g. how do you decide if
> the user is requesting (k),(k)->(), or (k),()->() with broadcasting over a
> non-core dimension of size k in the second argument? Wh
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>
>> I think that is a good idea.Let the user decide if scalar
>> broadcasting is acceptable for their function.
>>
>> Here is a simple concrete example where scalar broadcastin
On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
... Sounds like a real deprecation cycle would have been better.
IMHO for a library as venerable and widely-used as Numpy, a
deprecation cycle is almost always better ... consider this a
lesson learned.
For reference:
Mailing list discussion:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> Hi Travis,
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized
>>
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Steve Waterbury
wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> ... Sounds like a real deprecation cycle would have been better.
>>
>
> IMHO for a library as venerable and widely-used as Numpy, a
> deprecation cycle is almost always better ... conside
Hi,
Here is another example.
To write pix2ang (and similar functions) to a ufunc, one may want to have
implicit scalar broadcast on `nested` and `nsides` arguments.
The function is described here:
http://healpy.readthedocs.org/en/latest/generated/healpy.pixelfunc.pix2ang.html#healpy.pixelfunc.p
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> Hi Travis,
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized
>> u
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Travis,
>>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi everyone,
>>>
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Feng Yu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ang2pix is used in astronomy to pixelize coordinate in forms of
> (theta, phi). healpy is a binding of healpix
> (http://healpix.sourceforge.net/, introduction there too), plus a lot
> of more extra features or bloat (and I am not particula
Hi,
ang2pix is used in astronomy to pixelize coordinate in forms of
(theta, phi). healpy is a binding of healpix
(http://healpix.sourceforge.net/, introduction there too), plus a lot
of more extra features or bloat (and I am not particular fond of this
aspect of healpy). It gets the work done.
Yo
On 03/16/2016 10:32 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Steve Waterbury
mailto:water...@pangalactic.us>> wrote:
On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
... Sounds like a real deprecation cycle would have been better.
IMHO for a library as venerabl
Hi everyone,
Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized ufunc
argument checking no now longer allows scalars to be interpreted as 1-d
arrays in the core-dimensions?
Is there a way to specify in the core-signature that scalars should be
allowed and interpreted in those case
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized ufunc
> argument checking no now longer allows scalars to be interpreted as
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Steve Waterbury
wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 10:32 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Steve Waterbury
>> mailto:water...@pangalactic.us>> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> ... Sounds like a real de
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
> That's a great idea!
>
> Adding multiple-dispatch capability for this case could also solve a lot
> of issues that right now prevent generalized ufuncs from being the
> mechanism of implementation of *all* NumPy functions.
>
> -Travis
>
F
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2016 1:22 AM, "Feng Yu" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is another example.
>>
>> To write pix2ang (and similar functions) to a ufunc, one may want to have
>> implicit scalar broadcast on `nested` and `nsides` arguments.
>>
>> The
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>
>> I think that is a good idea.Let the user decide if scalar
>> broadcasting is acceptable for their function.
>>
>> Here is a simple concrete example where scalar broadcasting
Thanks for the explanation. I see the point now.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Feng Yu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> ang2pix is used in astronomy to pixelize coordinate in forms of
>> (theta, phi). healpy is a binding of healpix
>> (http://healp
On Mar 17, 2016 1:22 AM, "Feng Yu" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is another example.
>
> To write pix2ang (and similar functions) to a ufunc, one may want to have
implicit scalar broadcast on `nested` and `nsides` arguments.
>
> The function is described here:
>
>
http://healpy.readthedocs.org/en/latest
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Steve Waterbury
> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> ... Sounds like a real deprecation cycle would have been better.
>>
>>
>> IMHO for a library as venerable and widely-used
Hi Travis,
On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized ufunc
argument checking no now longer allows scalars to be interpreted as 1-d
arrays in the core-dimensions?
>
> Is there a way to specify in the co
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Travis Oliphant
wrote:
> I think that is a good idea.Let the user decide if scalar broadcasting
> is acceptable for their function.
>
> Here is a simple concrete example where scalar broadcasting makes sense:
>
> A 1-d dot product (the core of np.inner) (k),
22 matches
Mail list logo
