[Numpy-discussion] assert_allclose equal_nan default value.

2016-10-20 Thread Charles R Harris
Hi All, Just a heads up that there is a PR changing the default value of `equal_nan` to `True` in the `assert_allclose` test function. The `equal_nan` argument was previously ineffective due to a bug that has recently been fixed. The current default value of `False` is not backward compatible and

Re: [Numpy-discussion] assert_allclose equal_nan default value.

2016-10-20 Thread Nathan Goldbaum
Agreed, especially given the prevalence of using this function in downstream test suites: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=numpy+assert_allclose&type=Code&ref=searchresults On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Just a heads

Re: [Numpy-discussion] assert_allclose equal_nan default value.

2016-10-20 Thread Benjamin Root
+1. I was almost always setting it to True anyway. On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > Agreed, especially given the prevalence of using this function in > downstream test suites: > > https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=numpy+assert_ > allclose&type=Code&ref=searchres

Re: [Numpy-discussion] assert_allclose equal_nan default value.

2016-10-20 Thread Marten van Kerkwijk
Good, that means I can revert some changes to astropy, which made the tests less readable. -- Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] invalid value treatment, in filter_design

2016-10-20 Thread R Schumacher
In an attempt to computationally invert the effect of an analog RC filter on a data set and reconstruct the "true" signal, a co-worker suggested: "Mathematically, you just reverse the a and b parameters. Then the zeros become the poles, but if the new poles are not inside the unit circle, the f

[Numpy-discussion] fpower ufunc

2016-10-20 Thread Charles R Harris
Hi All, I've put up a preliminary PR for the proposed fpower ufunc. Apart from adding more tests and documentation, I'd like to settle a few other things. The first is the name, two names have been proposed and we should settle on one - fpower (short)

Re: [Numpy-discussion] fpower ufunc

2016-10-20 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > I've put up a preliminary PR for the proposed fpower ufunc. Apart from > adding more tests and documentation, I'd like to settle a few other things. > The first is the name, two names have been proposed and we should settle on

Re: [Numpy-discussion] fpower ufunc

2016-10-20 Thread Charles R Harris
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I've put up a preliminary PR for the proposed fpower ufunc. Apart from > > adding more tests and documentation, I'd like to settle a few other > things. > > Th