-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
17.08.2013 21:20, Charles R Harris kirjoitti:
[clip]
> Experimental would be OK if it would help you with Scipy 0.13.0.
> But if it does go in and is used in 0.13, won't that effectively
> lock it in until the next scipy/numpy release? That seems a bit
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 15.08.2013 19:52, Charles R Harris kirjoitti:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Blake Griffith
> > >> wrote: I would like to have the ufunc overrides in 1.8 if it is
> >> possible.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
15.08.2013 19:52, Charles R Harris kirjoitti:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Blake Griffith
> > wrote: I would like to have the ufunc overrides in 1.8 if it is
>> possible.
[clip]
> What is the status of that? I've been leaving that commit up the
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal <
chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>
> >>> I'm afraid I don't understand the discussion on timezones in
> >>> datetime64, but I have the impression that those who do think it needs
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Chris B - are you the point man on this one? What do you think?
Only the point man in the sense that I'm poking at people to try to
get what I want ;-)
But see my other note.
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergenc
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> I'm afraid I don't understand the discussion on timezones in
>>> datetime64, but I have the impression that those who do think it needs
>>> an urgent decision and some action for the short term. Is that right,
>>> datetimers?
>>>
>>> If
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Brett
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Gommers
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> H
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints,
>
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints,
>> thoughts?
>
>
> First thought: thanks a lot for doing this.
I'm afraid I don't
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints,
> thoughts?
>
First thought: thanks a lot for doing this.
Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussi
I think it is nearly complete. Although there are some recent changes that
need review.
I still need to go back and make changes to the original NEP noting the
differences in final implementation.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Charles R Harris <
charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Blake Griffith wrote:
> I would like to have the ufunc overrides in 1.8 if it is possible.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't see any that *have* to go in, but there are a few that could be
>
I would like to have the ufunc overrides in 1.8 if it is possible.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> I don't see any that *have* to go in, but there are a few that could be
> included. The most significant is probably the inplace fancy indexing if it
> is ready. The nan
I don't see any that *have* to go in, but there are a few that could be
included. The most significant is probably the inplace fancy indexing if it
is ready. The nanmean etc. functions are not committed yet, but I think
they are ready. If the Polynomial import fixes show up, they can go in.
There a
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints, thoughts?
Thanks, Chuck. Are there any specific PRs up for review that should
be incorporated into 1.8?
Stéfan
___
NumPy-
Hi All,
I'm thinking of making the 1.8.x branch next Sunday. Any complaints,
thoughts?
Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
18 matches
Mail list logo
