Pete Forman wrote:
> Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Colin J. Williams wrote:
>>> I'm not sure that scipy has been updated to Python 2.5
> > ? scipy certainly works with 2.5. Are you referring to something
> > else perhaps?
>
> Yes, the Python Enthought Edition was being discusse
Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Colin J. Williams wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that scipy has been updated to Python 2.5
>
> ? scipy certainly works with 2.5. Are you referring to something
> else perhaps?
Yes, the Python Enthought Edition was being discussed and it is
currently based on
On Apr 20, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Tommy Grav wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> Colin J. Williams wrote:
>>>
I'm not sure that scipy has been updated to Python 2.5
>>> ? scipy certainly works with 2.5. Are you referring to something
>>> else perhaps?
Tommy Grav wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> Colin J. Williams wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure that scipy has been updated to Python 2.5
>> ? scipy certainly works with 2.5. Are you referring to something
>> else perhaps?
>
> A side question: Is there any plans of updating t
On Apr 20, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Colin J. Williams wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that scipy has been updated to Python 2.5
>
> ? scipy certainly works with 2.5. Are you referring to something
> else perhaps?
A side question: Is there any plans of updating the scipy.org
Superpack bu
Colin J. Williams wrote:
> I'm not sure that scipy has been updated to Python 2.5
? scipy certainly works with 2.5. Are you referring to something else perhaps?
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad att
orangeDinosaur wrote:
> OK, I'll go with the enthought installation. This seems to be the
> path of least resistance. For those of you who have been in my
> position, is there a reason NOT to go with the enthought installation
> and do things piecemeal instead?
>
> thanks,
> trevis
>
> On Apr 2
OK, I'll go with the enthought installation. This seems to be the
path of least resistance. For those of you who have been in my
position, is there a reason NOT to go with the enthought installation
and do things piecemeal instead?
thanks,
trevis
On Apr 20, 11:36 am, Pete Forman <[EMAIL PROTECT
orangeDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...] But now, the figure window is completely unresponsive -- I
> can't even close it without getting the "your program is not
> repsonding" business. What am I missing? This behavior so far
> seems pretty unintuitive.
The best way out of this i
orangeDinosaur wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am exploring the possibility of using python as a replacement of
> MATLAB when I leave school. So, I've been playing with matplotlib and
> have run into some weird behavior after recently installing python
> 2.5.1 and matplotlib 0.90 on my Windows XP machine. Her
On 19 Apr 2007 16:13:43 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, first off, what's up with the [ > at 0x017C38C8>] line that shows up after my plot command? And second,
> > when I call show(), a new figure pops up with my sin wave -- seems all
> > right, yes? But I'm not given
> So, first off, what's up with the [ at 0x017C38C8>] line that shows up after my plot command? And second,
> when I call show(), a new figure pops up with my sin wave -- seems all
> right, yes? But I'm not given another >>> prompt in IDLE until or
> unless I close the figure that popped up with
Hi,
I am exploring the possibility of using python as a replacement of
MATLAB when I leave school. So, I've been playing with matplotlib and
have run into some weird behavior after recently installing python
2.5.1 and matplotlib 0.90 on my Windows XP machine. Here's an example
of what I see:
>>>
13 matches
Mail list logo
