Tim Hochberg wrote: <snip>
This would work fine if repr were instead:
dtype([('x', float64), ('z', complex128)])
Anyway, this all seems reasonable to me at first glance. That said, I don't plan to work on this, I've got other fish to fry at the moment.
A new point: Please remind me (and probably others): when did it get decided to introduce 'complex128' to mean numarray's complex64 and the 'complex64' to mean numarray's complex32 ? I do understand the logic that 128 is really the bit-size of one (complex) element - but I also liked the old way, because: 1. e.g. in fft transforms, float32 would "go with" complex32 and float64 with complex64 2. complex128 is one character extra (longer) and also (alphabetically) now sorts before(!) complex64 These might just be my personal (idiotic ;-) comments - but I would appreciate some feedback/comments. Also: Is it now to late to (re-)start a discussion on this !? Thanks - Sebastian Haase