On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 14:53, Rick White wrote:
On 24 Jun 2004, Todd Miller wrote:
OK, I see your point. I talked it over with Perry and he made a reasonable case for allowing comparisons with None (or any object). Perry argued that since None is a common default parameter value, it might simplify code to not have to add logic to handle that case.
If no one objects, I'll change numarray.strings so that comparison of a string array with any object not convertible to a string array results in an array of False values.
Any objections?
Hmm, before you do that you might look at this:
>>> import numarray >>> b = numarray.zeros(10) >>> b==0 array([1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1], type=Bool) >>> b==None 0So comparing numeric arrays to None returns a scalar false value since the variable b is not None.
Oh yeah... I forgot about that. Numeric comparisons have a special case for None and blow up for most other arbitrary objects. So there's also:
a= numarray.arange(100) a == None
0
class foo:
.. pass ..
a == foo
Traceback (most recent call last): .. TypeError: UFunc arguments must be numarray, scalars or numeric sequences
I figure that the behavior of comparisons to None for string arrays
and
numeric arrays ought to be consistent. I don't know which is preferred...
So the two choices now on the table are:
1. Change string equality comparisons to return an array of false or true for objects which don't convert to strings. Change Numeric equality comparisons in a similar fashion.
2. Special case string equality comparisons for None, as is done with numerical comparisons. Raise a type error for objects (other than None) which don't convert to string arrays.
I think I like 2. Other opinions on 1 & 2? Other choices?
Regards, Todd