A Dimarts 27 Juliol 2004 22:04, gerard.vermeulen@grenoble.cnrs.fr va escriure:
Introducing recordArray["column"] as an alternative for recordArray.field("column") breaks a symmetry between for instance 1-d record arrays and 2-d normal arrays. (the symmetry is strongly suggested by their representation: a record array prints almost as a list of tuples and a 2-d normal array almost as a list of lists).
Indexing a column of a 2-d normal array is done by normalArray[:, column], so why not recArray[:, "column"] ?
Well, I must recognize that this has its beauty (by revealing the simmetry that you mentioned). However, mixing integer and strings on indices can be, in my opinion, rather confusing for most people. Then, I guess that the implementation wouldn't be easy.
I prefer to use
recordArray.column[32]
and/or
recordArray[32].column
rather than recordArray["column"][32].
I would prefer better: recordArray.fields.column[32] or recordArray.cols.column[32] (note the use of the plural in fields and cols, which I think is more consistent about its functionality) The problem with: recordArray[32].fields.column is that I don't see it as natural and besides, completion capabilities would be broken after the [] parenthesis. Anyway, as Russell suggested, I don't like recordArray["column"][32], because it would be unnecessary (you can get same result using recordArray[column_idx][32]). Although I recognize that a recordArray.cols["column"][32] would not hurt my eyes so much. This is because although indices continues to mix ints and strings, the difference is that ".cols" is placed first, giving a new (and unmistakable) meaning to the "column" index. Cheers, -- Francesc Alted