On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Allan Haldane wrote:

On 01/07/2018 12:37 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:

...

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Charles R Harris mailto:charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

On behalf of the NumPy team, I am pleased to announce NumPy 1.14.0.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting to get this release out the door Chuck!

Ralf

Yes, I am always very impressed and appreciative of all the work Chuck does for Numpy. Thank you very much!

+1 -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org

I assume you mean 1.14.0, rather than 1.4.0? Did recarrays change? I didn't see anything in the release notes. On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 4:25 PM, wrote:

statsmodels does not work with numpy 1.4.0

Besides the missing WarningsManager there seems to be 22 errors or failures from changes in numpy behavior, mainly from recarrays again.

Josef _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Did recarrays change? I didn’t see anything in the release notes. Not directly, but structured arrays did https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/doc/release/1.14.0-notes.rst#mult..., for which recarrays are really just a thin and somewhat buggy wrapper. ​ On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 14:19 wrote:

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:

...

I assume you mean 1.14.0, rather than 1.4.0?

Yes, typo

...

Did recarrays change? I didn't see anything in the release notes.

I didn't look at the details. thequackdaddy is doing the hunting. maybe it's the loadtxt interaction one problem is with converters https://github.com/statsmodels/statsmodels/pull/4205/files

(statsmodels has too much "legacy" code from pre-pandas days.)

Josef

...

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 4:25 PM, wrote:

...

statsmodels does not work with numpy 1.4.0

Besides the missing WarningsManager there seems to be 22 errors or failures from changes in numpy behavior, mainly from recarrays again.

Josef _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 11:35 +0000, Matthew Brett wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Eric Wieser wrote:

...

Did recarrays change? I didn’t see anything in the release notes.

Not directly, but structured arrays did, for which recarrays are really just a thin and somewhat buggy wrapper.

Oh dear oh dear - for some reason I had completely missed these changes, and the justification for them.

They do exactly the kind of thing that Konrad Hinsen was complaining about before, with justification, which is to change the behavior of previous code, without an intervening (long) period of raising an error. In this case, the benefits of these changes seem small, compared to the inevitable breakage and silently changed results they will cause.

Is there any chance of reversing them?

Without knowing the change, there is always a chance of (temporary) reversal and for unexpected complications its probably the safest default if there is no agreement anyway. - Sebastian

Cheers,

Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

On 01/14/2018 11:30 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Matthew Brett mailto:matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Eric Wieser mailto:wieser.eric%2Bnumpy@gmail.com> wrote: > Did recarrays change? I didn’t see anything in the release notes. > > Not directly, but structured arrays did, for which recarrays are really just > a thin and somewhat buggy wrapper.

Oh dear oh dear - for some reason I had completely missed these changes, and the justification for them.

See https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6053. It actually goes back a couple of years.

They do exactly the kind of thing that Konrad Hinsen was complaining about before, with justification, which is to change the behavior of previous code, without an intervening (long) period of raising an error.  In this case, the benefits of these changes seem small, compared to the inevitable breakage and silently changed results they will cause.

Is there any chance of reversing them?

Of course the goal was to make things backwards-compatible; If some part of the changes is breaking a lot of code we will revert, or find a way to stop breaking code. It's not yet clear to me which exact changes are causing the problem. The statsmodel failures may be related to what we are working on in one of these different issues: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/10344 https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/10387 https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/10394 I will be checking the statsmodel unit tests as we fix things, to make sure they pass in the end. Allan