On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:53 AM, wrote:
> 2010/2/2 Ernest Adrogué :
>> 2/02/10 @ 00:01 (-0700), thus spake Charles R Harris:
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:57 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02
2010/2/2 Ernest Adrogué :
> 2/02/10 @ 00:01 (-0700), thus spake Charles R Harris:
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:57 PM, wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at
2/02/10 @ 00:01 (-0700), thus spake Charles R Harris:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:57 PM, wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Charles R Harris
> > >> w
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:57 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:36 PM, David Cournapeau
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:57 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Charles R Harris
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:36 PM, David Cournapeau
>>> > w
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:36 PM, David Cournapeau
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM, wrot
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:36 PM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think this could be considered as a correct answer, the cou
Charles R Harris wrote:
>
> In this case I would expect an empty input to be a programming error and
> raising an error to be the right thing.
Ok, I fixed the code in the trunk to raise a ValueError in that case.
Changing to return an empty array would be easy,
cheers,
David
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:36 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM, wrote:
>>
>> > I think this could be considered as a correct answer, the count of any
>> > integer is zero.
>>
>> Maybe, but this shape is
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:36 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM, wrote:
>
> > I think this could be considered as a correct answer, the count of any
> > integer is zero.
>
> Maybe, but this shape is random - it would be different in different
> conditions, as the length
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM, wrote:
> I think this could be considered as a correct answer, the count of any
> integer is zero.
Maybe, but this shape is random - it would be different in different
conditions, as the length of the returned array is just some random
memory location.
>
> Retur
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:37 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
>>> 2010/2/1 Ernest Adrogué :
Hello,
Consider the following code:
for j in range(5):
f = np.bincount(x[y == j])
josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
>> 2010/2/1 Ernest Adrogué :
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Consider the following code:
>>>
>>> for j in range(5):
>>>f = np.bincount(x[y == j])
>>>
>>> It fails with MemoryError whenever y == j is all False element-w
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
> 2010/2/1 Ernest Adrogué :
>> Hello,
>>
>> Consider the following code:
>>
>> for j in range(5):
>> f = np.bincount(x[y == j])
>>
>> It fails with MemoryError whenever y == j is all False element-wise.
>>
>>
>> In [96]: np.bincount([])
2010/2/1 Ernest Adrogué :
> Hello,
>
> Consider the following code:
>
> for j in range(5):
> f = np.bincount(x[y == j])
>
> It fails with MemoryError whenever y == j is all False element-wise.
>
>
> In [96]: np.bincount([])
> --
Hello,
Consider the following code:
for j in range(5):
f = np.bincount(x[y == j])
It fails with MemoryError whenever y == j is all False element-wise.
In [96]: np.bincount([])
---
MemoryError
16 matches
Mail list logo
