[SciPy-Dev] SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 105, Issue 9

Alexander Arsenovic aia8v@virginia....
Sat Jul 7 20:50:03 CDT 2012


thanks man. by the way, the docs look really good. the `ggplot` style is
great.

it would be cool to get journals to participate by making formal style
files. i emailed ieee once about this and never heard back.  maybe you
could get them to endorse mpltools as a way to make an acceptably formatted
plot, which would boost your user base.

just a thought.


alex



On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM, <scipy-dev-request@scipy.org> wrote:

> Send SciPy-Dev mailing list submissions to
>         scipy-dev@scipy.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         scipy-dev-request@scipy.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         scipy-dev-owner@scipy.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of SciPy-Dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: interp2d bounds checking (Pauli Virtanen)
>    2. Re: interp2d bounds checking (Nathaniel Smith)
>    3. Enhancements to scipy.spatial.cKDTree (Patrick Varilly)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:51:53 +0200
> From: Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi>
> Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] interp2d bounds checking
> To: scipy-dev@scipy.org
> Message-ID: <jt7c4a$97n$1@dough.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 06.07.2012 18:19, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti:
> > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> [clip]
> >     I've also been thinking about enlarging the griddata syntax from the
> >     possibly somewhat unfriendly
> >
> >             griddata((x, y), z, (xi, yi), **kw)
> >             griddata((x, y, z), u, (xi, yi, zi), **kw)
> >
> >     to the variable argument one
> >
> >             griddata(x, y, z, xi, yi, **kw)
> >             griddata(x, y, z, u, xi, yi, zi, **kw)
> >
> >     which may be more familiar to users. Thoughts?
> >
> > That does look easier to use, but having two interfaces will be
> > confusing. And deprecating the old one will be painful. What exactly do
> > you have in mind to do here?
>
> I was thinking about making the latter syntax an alias for the former,
> keeping both around. But perhaps it's confusing.
>
> Another issue is that variable arguments don't play too well with
> function signatures. This is BTW one thing that is better in Python 3,
> which has keyword-only arguments.
>
>         Pauli
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:28:21 +0100
> From: Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] interp2d bounds checking
> To: SciPy Developers List <scipy-dev@scipy.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <CAPJVwB=
> y2MiMdqTX+bOAfBtgDi9SMFkpejtxatPYVb8gXnY3sA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi> wrote:
> > 06.07.2012 18:19, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti:
> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> > [clip]
> >>     I've also been thinking about enlarging the griddata syntax from the
> >>     possibly somewhat unfriendly
> >>
> >>             griddata((x, y), z, (xi, yi), **kw)
> >>             griddata((x, y, z), u, (xi, yi, zi), **kw)
> >>
> >>     to the variable argument one
> >>
> >>             griddata(x, y, z, xi, yi, **kw)
> >>             griddata(x, y, z, u, xi, yi, zi, **kw)
> >>
> >>     which may be more familiar to users. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> That does look easier to use, but having two interfaces will be
> >> confusing. And deprecating the old one will be painful. What exactly do
> >> you have in mind to do here?
> >
> > I was thinking about making the latter syntax an alias for the former,
> > keeping both around. But perhaps it's confusing.
>
> If I had the option I'd use the former ("old") syntax, but then, I'm weird.
>
> -N
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 00:36:50 +0100
> From: Patrick Varilly <patvarilly@gmail.com>
> Subject: [SciPy-Dev] Enhancements to scipy.spatial.cKDTree
> To: scipy-dev@scipy.org
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAHEe8R-y38kBx0an6RmWeVtTegRd2UKPROtyZcCzXLSCSMiviw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've recently been putting together a wrapper around scipy.spatial.KDTree
> to transparently handle periodic boundary conditions that are common in
> analyzing the results of molecular simulations (
> https://github.com/patvarilly/periodic_kdtree).  In the process, I've
> started enhancing some of scipy.spatial.cKDTree by adding a Cythonized
> query_ball_point method.  A pull request is here
>
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/262
>
> Two things I have noticed are that the interfaces to the KDTree and cKDTree
> query() methods aren't quite in line, and that it wouldn't take a whole lot
> of extra effort to Cythonize the rest of KDTree.  The innards of the code
> could also be reorganized a bit to make it easier for other people to
> extend these classes.  For the periodic kd-trees, for example, I had to
> jump through a few hoops, and ended up with two different codebases for
> wrapping KDTree's and cKDTree's, which is not ideal.
>
> I was writing to gauge if there's actually any interest in cleaning up
> KDTrees and Cythonizing the rest of the KDTree interface.  If so, I'd be
> willing to put a bit of effort into doing so.  A delicate question that
> comes up is whether anyone relies on the subtle differences between
> KDTree.query() and cKDTree.query() (e.g., passing k = None), so that
> bringing the two interfaces exactly in line with each other would break
> existing code.  How is this issue usually dealt with?
>
> All the best,
>
> Patrick
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20120707/3e8f9a73/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
>
> End of SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 105, Issue 9
> *****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20120707/b45d8b45/attachment.html 


More information about the SciPy-Dev mailing list