Sebastian Haase wrote:
> Thanks Robert,
> Just for the archive: I hope the problem I was thinking of is what is
> referred to here:
> http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2005-July/004992.html
> i.e. it should have been fixed as bug #1123145 in Numeric.
>
> (see also here:
> https://nan
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 15:47, Sebastian Haase wrote:
> Thanks Robert,
> Just for the archive: I hope the problem I was thinking of is what is
> referred to here:
> http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2005-July/004992.html
> i.e. it should have been fixed as bug #1123145 in Numeric.
>
Thanks Robert,
Just for the archive: I hope the problem I was thinking of is what is
referred to here:
http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2005-July/004992.html
i.e. it should have been fixed as bug #1123145 in Numeric.
(see also here:
https://nanohub.org/infrastructure/rappture-runti
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 02:30, Sebastian Haase wrote:
> Hi,
> maybe this is an obsolete concern,
> but at some point in the past
> N.random.poisson would not always return 0 for lambda being zero.
> (My post at the time should be in the (numarray) list archive)
>
> So the question is, is this sti
Hi,
maybe this is an obsolete concern,
but at some point in the past
N.random.poisson would not always return 0 for lambda being zero.
(My post at the time should be in the (numarray) list archive)
So the question is, is this still a valid concern for the current numpy?
Could there a unittest add
