On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>
>>
>>
> here's the rule for a set of arbitrary arrays (not necessarily just 2):
>>
>> - if all the arrays are scalars, do type promotion on the types as is
>> - otherwise, do type promoti
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>
>
here's the rule for a set of arbitrary arrays (not necessarily just 2):
>
> - if all the arrays are scalars, do type promotion on the types as is
> - otherwise, do type promotion on min_scalar_type(a) of each array a
>
> The function min_sc
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 13:17, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:27, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>
>> > IIRC, the behavior with respect to scalars sort of happened in the code
>> > on
>> > the fly, so this is a goo
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:49, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> You're missing the key part of the rule that numpy uses: for
>> array*scalar cases, when both array and scalar are the same kind (both
>> floating point or both integers), then the array dty
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Charles R Harris <
charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:27, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>
>> > IIRC, the behavior with respect to scalars sort of happened in the code
>> on
>>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:27, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>
> > IIRC, the behavior with respect to scalars sort of happened in the code
> on
> > the fly, so this is a good discussion to have. We should end up with
> > documented rules and tes
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:27, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> IIRC, the behavior with respect to scalars sort of happened in the code on
> the fly, so this is a good discussion to have. We should end up with
> documented rules and tests to enforce them. I agree with Mark that the tests
> have been def
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 23:43, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Travis Oliphant <
>> oliph...@enthought.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> It would be good to see a simple
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:20, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Robert Kern
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 23:43, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> >> > On Mo
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:20, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Robert Kern
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 23:43, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Travis Oliphant
> >> >
> >> > wro
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:20, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 23:43, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Travis Oliphant
>> >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> It would be good to see a simple test case and understand
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 23:43, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Travis Oliphant >
> > wrote:
>
> >> It would be good to see a simple test case and understand why the
> boolean
> >> multiplied by the scalar double is bec
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 23:43, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>> It would be good to see a simple test case and understand why the boolean
>> multiplied by the scalar double is becoming a float16. In other words,
>> why does
>> (1-test)*t
>> re
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
> I agree with Charles. Let's take the needed time and work this through.
> This is the sort of thing I was a bit nervous about with the changes made to
> the casting rules.Rig
On Apr 11, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 13:54, Skipper Seabold wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We noticed some failing tests for statsmodels between
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 13:54, Skipper Seabold
>> wrote:
>> > All,
>> >
>> > We noticed some failing tests for statsmodels between numpy 1.5.1 and
>> > numpy >= 1.6.0. These are the ver
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 13:54, Skipper Seabold
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We noticed some failing tests for statsmodels between numpy 1.5.1 and
> > numpy >= 1.6.0. These are the versions where I noticed the change. It
> > seems that when you
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Skipper Seabold wrote:
> All,
>
> We noticed some failing tests for statsmodels between numpy 1.5.1 and
> numpy >= 1.6.0. These are the versions where I noticed the change. It
> seems that when you divide a float array and multiply by a boolean
> array the answers
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 13:54, Skipper Seabold wrote:
> All,
>
> We noticed some failing tests for statsmodels between numpy 1.5.1 and
> numpy >= 1.6.0. These are the versions where I noticed the change. It
> seems that when you divide a float array and multiply by a boolean
> array the answers ar
All,
We noticed some failing tests for statsmodels between numpy 1.5.1 and
numpy >= 1.6.0. These are the versions where I noticed the change. It
seems that when you divide a float array and multiply by a boolean
array the answers are different (unless the others are also off by
some floating point
20 matches
Mail list logo
