[Numpy-discussion] preparing to tag NumPy 1.0.5 on Wednesday
Charles R Harris
Wed Mar 5 03:54:46 CST 2008
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Travis E. Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Charles R Harris wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Jarrod Millman <email@example.com
> > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I would like to tag the 1.0.5 release on Wednesday night and
> > the release by Monday (3/10). If you have anything that you would
> > like to get in before then, please do it now. It would also be
> > if everyone could test the trunk. If anyone finds a bug or
> > that should delay the release, please send an email to the list
> > Please take a look at the release notes and let me know if you see
> > anything that needs to be changed or updated:
> > http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/milestone/1.0.5
> > Thanks,
> > I think ticket 597 should be pretty easy to fix. I just want to make
> > sure everyone agrees it should be fixed.
> I can't imagine someone "depending" on this behavior. And it should be
> consistent between 32-bit and 64-bit systems.
Ok, it's fixed, sorta; it still fails for numbers < -2**63. I really wonder
where we should draw the line? The C option would be to convert all integer
types using modular arithmetic, but I have to wonder if 10**10000 mod(2**64)
really makes much sense. On the other hand, it is convenient to get the
largest unsigned number as uint64(-1). On the third hand, the same can be
achieved using the known integer bounds and the stricter typing probably
makes sense from the numerical point of view. How does FORTRAN deal with
these types of conversions? I've forgotten.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion