On Monday 12 May 2008 12:04:24 Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> 2008/5/12 Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What should I do with oldnumeric.ma.power ? Try to fix it the same
> > way, or leave the bug ? I'm not that enthusiastic to have to debug the
> > old package, but if it's part of the job...
>
>
2008/5/12 Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I fixed the power function in numpy.ma following Anne's suggestion: compute
> first, mask the problems afterwards. It's a quick and dirty fix that crashes
> if the user has set its error system to raise an exception on invalid
> (np.seterr(invalid='rai
All,
I fixed the power function in numpy.ma following Anne's suggestion: compute
first, mask the problems afterwards. It's a quick and dirty fix that crashes
if the user has set its error system to raise an exception on invalid
(np.seterr(invalid='raise')), but it works otherwise and keeps subcl
Anne Archibald wrote:
> 2008/5/9 Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Stefan, (and Jarrod and Pierre)
>>
>> (Context for anyone new to the thread: the subject is slightly
>> misleading, because the bug is/was present in both oldnumeric.ma and
>> numpy.ma; the discussion of fix pertains to the lat
2008/5/9 Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Stefan, (and Jarrod and Pierre)
>
> (Context for anyone new to the thread: the subject is slightly
> misleading, because the bug is/was present in both oldnumeric.ma and
> numpy.ma; the discussion of fix pertains to the latter only.)
>
> Regarding you
On Friday 09 May 2008 12:55:39 Eric Firing wrote:
> Stefan, (and Jarrod and Pierre)
> Regarding your objections to r5137: good point. I wondered about that.
> I think the function should look like this (although it might be
> possible to speed up the implementation for the most common case):
O
Stefan, (and Jarrod and Pierre)
(Context for anyone new to the thread: the subject is slightly
misleading, because the bug is/was present in both oldnumeric.ma and
numpy.ma; the discussion of fix pertains to the latter only.)
Regarding your objections to r5137: good point. I wondered about tha
2008/5/9 Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Pierre GM fixed this in r5137, so that the result is masked only if the
> first argument is negative and the power is between -1 and 1.
Why should the output be masked only when the power is between -1 and
1? Other powers also produce nan's. Either way
Jarrod Millman wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, there is a problem with ma.power: masking negative data should be
>> restricted to the case of an exponent between -1. and 1. only, don't you
>> think ?
>
> Charles Doutriaux has suggested that 1.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, there is a problem with ma.power: masking negative data should be
> restricted to the case of an exponent between -1. and 1. only, don't you
> think ?
Charles Doutriaux has suggested that 1.1.0 shouldn't be released until
2008/5/7 Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wednesday 07 May 2008 20:38:22 Anne Archibald wrote:
> > 2008/5/7 Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > All,
> > > Yes, there is a problem with ma.power: masking negative data should be
> > > restricted to the case of an exponent between -1. and 1.
2008/5/7 Jonathan Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there a rule against squaring away the negatives?
>
> def not_your_normal_pow( x, y ): return exp( log( power( x, 2) ) * y / 2 )
>
> Which still needs some work for x==0.
Well, it means (-1.)**(3.) becomes 1., which is probably not what the
us
Anne Archibald wrote:
> 2008/5/7 Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> All,
>> Yes, there is a problem with ma.power: masking negative data should be
>> restricted to the case of an exponent between -1. and 1. only, don't you
>> think ?
>>
>
> No, there's a problem with any fractional expo
On Wednesday 07 May 2008 20:38:22 Anne Archibald wrote:
> 2008/5/7 Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > All,
> > Yes, there is a problem with ma.power: masking negative data should be
> > restricted to the case of an exponent between -1. and 1. only, don't you
> > think ?
>
> No, there's a problem
2008/5/7 Pierre GM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> All,
> Yes, there is a problem with ma.power: masking negative data should be
> restricted to the case of an exponent between -1. and 1. only, don't you
> think ?
No, there's a problem with any fractional exponent (with even
denominator): x**(3/2) == (x
All,
Yes, there is a problem with ma.power: masking negative data should be
restricted to the case of an exponent between -1. and 1. only, don't you
think ?
On Wednesday 07 May 2008 18:47:18 Anne Archibald wrote:
> 2008/5/7 Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Charles Doutriaux wrote:
> > > The
2008/5/7 Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Charles Doutriaux wrote:
> > The following code works with numpy.ma but not numpy.oldnumeric.ma,
>
> No, this is a bug in numpy.ma also; power is broken:
While it's tempting to just call power() and mask out any NaNs that
result, that's going to be a p
Charles Doutriaux wrote:
> The following code works with numpy.ma but not numpy.oldnumeric.ma,
No, this is a bug in numpy.ma also; power is broken:
In [1]:import numpy as np
In [2]:x = np.ma.array([-1.1])
In [3]:x**2.0 ### This works
Out[3]:
masked_array(data = [1.21],
The following code works with numpy.ma but not numpy.oldnumeric.ma,
obviously it shouldn't have missing values...
Note that replacing 2. with 2 (int) works, dtype does not seem to matter
import numpy.oldnumeric.ma as MA,numpy
s = MA.array([ 12.16271591, 11.19478798, 10.27440453, 9.60334778,
9.
19 matches
Mail list logo
