On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 02:43, Sebastian Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 19:35, Ryan May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 02:43, Sebastian Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 19:35, Ryan May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Robert Kern wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 18:10, Sebastian Haase <[EMAI
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 02:33, Bob Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is not supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between the
>> functions in numpy and the methods on an ndarray. There is some
>> duplication between the two, but that is not a reason to make more
>> duplication.
>
> I
Hi Bob
2008/6/24 Bob Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would make a plea for consistency, to start with.
>
> Those of us who write in an OO style are required to switch backwards
> and forwards between OO and not-OO, or to abandon OO altogether in our
> NumPy code. Neither is an attractive option.
Sebastian Haase wrote:
> Are you saying the duplication is "just random" ? It would be better
> -- as in: principle of minimum surprise -- if there would be some sort
> "reasonable set" of duplicates
Yes it would be better. But how do you do it without breaking other
people code and avoiding
2008/6/24 Bob Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> There is not supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between the
>> functions in numpy and the methods on an ndarray. There is some
>> duplication between the two, but that is not a reason to make more
>> duplication.
>
> I would make a plea for cons
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 19:35, Ryan May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert Kern wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 18:10, Sebastian Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bob Dowling <[EMAIL
> There is not supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between the
> functions in numpy and the methods on an ndarray. There is some
> duplication between the two, but that is not a reason to make more
> duplication.
I would make a plea for consistency, to start with.
Those of us who write in
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 19:35, Ryan May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 18:10, Sebastian Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bob Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ I'm new here and this has the feel of an FAQ but I
Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 18:10, Sebastian Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bob Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [ I'm new here and this has the feel of an FAQ but I couldn't find
>>> anything at http://www.scipy.org/FAQ . If I should h
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 18:10, Sebastian Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bob Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [ I'm new here and this has the feel of an FAQ but I couldn't find
>> anything at http://www.scipy.org/FAQ . If I should have looked
>> somewhere
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bob Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ I'm new here and this has the feel of an FAQ but I couldn't find
> anything at http://www.scipy.org/FAQ . If I should have looked
> somewhere else a URL would be gratefully received. ]
>
>
> What's the reasoning behind fu
[ I'm new here and this has the feel of an FAQ but I couldn't find
anything at http://www.scipy.org/FAQ . If I should have looked
somewhere else a URL would be gratefully received. ]
What's the reasoning behind functions like sum() and cumsum() being
provided both as module functions (numpy.s
13 matches
Mail list logo
